Topic: BBL announces changes to banding permit policies

Background: In 1998, the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL)commissioned a panel to examine its philosophy and practices.  The panel produced the "Buckley Report."  (available at http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/nabbp21.htm).  Following the completion of that report, BBL formed six task forces to look at each of six issues in more depth.  The recommendations of these task forces were reviewed by an implementation team, which decided on changes to be made to BBL practice and procedure.  On 19 May 2000, BBL sent a third letter to banders, explaining these planned changes and asking for comments. [See also http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/OC/experthelp/bbl.html for the second letter to banders and the OC response to that letter].

The Ornithological Council filed comments, but would still like to hear from all banders and ornithologists regarding these planned changes.

BBL Letter 3:

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Bird Banding Laboratory
12100 Beech Forest Road
Laurel, MD 20708-4037
May 19, 2000

Dear Bander:

This is the third of three letters communicating decisions and plans stemming from the review of the North American bird banding program.  In our first letter (September 24, 1998), we mentioned the availability of the Review Panel's final report and recommendations  (The North American Bird Banding Program: Into the 21st Century - available at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nabbpcvr.htm), and we described the process for moving from the Review Panel's recommendations to decisions and actions in the bird banding program.   Briefly, in that process, an interagency Implementation Team was established to guide improvements to the banding program and operations of the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL).  The Implementation Team identified six priority areas in which to focus efforts, and then appointed Task Forces to refine panel recommendations in these areas, and to develop specific plans for implementation. The Implementation Team considered Task Force recommendations relative to the Review Panel's report, and agency needs, policies and resources, and then made final decisions for BBL to implement and communicate to banders.

In our first letter, we communicated new policy and procedures for Data Release.   In the second letter (January 6, 1999) we communicated results for priority areas Electronic Data Management, Location Data, and Ancillary Data.  Copies of our first and second letters are available through our web site at the above address.  This letter, our third and last one, covers priority areas Recapture/Resighting Data, and Permit Policies and Procedures.  The latter area is of considerable scope and import, where decisions of the Implementation Team have resulted in significant changes.  Because the amount of material to be covered is lengthy, we have chosen to present it as two appendices to this letter.

Thank you in advance for considering these new developments.  We look forward to working with you in our continuing effort to improve operations of the BBL and the broader North American bird banding program.  We solicit your comments and suggestions about how to make these various changes as convenient as possible for the bander to adapt to.

                                                                                        Sincerely,
 

                                                                                         John Tautin, Chief

 APPENDIX I.  RECAPTURE/RESIGHTING DATA

BBL will develop a bird banding recapture/resighting database for use in contemporary and future migratory bird conservation.   A "recapture" is the capture of a previously banded bird.  A "resighting" is the observation of a bird previously marked with a unique identifier such as a neck collar, wing tag, or radio transmitter.  Recaptures and resightings are usually made by the original bander, but may be made by other banders, collaborators or the public. Recaptures and resightings constitute the majority of post-release data obtained from banded nongame birds, and for most analytical purposes the two can be considered equivalent.   Individual banders often make extensive use of their own recapture and resighting data.  However, for various reasons no longer valid, most recapture and resighting data historically were not included in the BBL database and, consequently, have not been available to others for analysis.

Today, the value of recapture/resighting data is widely recognized in light of the need for more and better data to support avian research and management.  Advances in computer technology now make it feasible to manage the large volumes of recapture/resighting data.  A suite of powerful analytical models and software is available for analyzing them to estimate survival rate, population size and rate of change, movement probabilities, age-specific breeding probabilities, and parameters reflecting contributions of demographic components to population growth.  The results can be applied to studies of population ecology, evolutionary ecology, landscape ecology, and behavioral ecology, as well as to monitoring programs.

The coming together of data needs, computing power, analytical tools, and applications for results make development of a recapture/resighting database at BBL timely and useful.  To accomplish this development, BBL must design a database structure; develop record formats and data edits, develop ways for the data to be received and disseminated electronically via the Internet; and integrate the new database into its vast existing databases and re-engineered computer system.  Data sets appropriate for inclusion in the database must be identified and obtained.  Project profiles describing how individual data sets were collected must be developed.  The development of a recapture/resighting database will occur during 2000 with the support of a contract biologist recently hired to work at BBL.

Some banders who already have good recapture data may be invited this year to contribute them for "beta testing" of the new database.  Eventually, depending on need, feasibility, and success of our initial development, banders may be asked to submit recapture data on a regular basis along with their banding data.  BAND MANGER has been programmed in anticipation of this possibility.  BBL will keep banders informed as our new recapture/resighting database develops.  BBL looks forward to working with banders in this exciting endeavor that will enhance the quality and quantity of banding data available for the conservation of migratory birds.
 APPENDIX II.  PERMIT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Permit Policies and Procedures are very important to banders, because permits provide the enabling authority for banders to carry out their work.    Permit Policies and Procedures also provide protections for birds being studied, and the means for banding offices to balance resources available to them with support they are able to give banders. In making its decisions regarding Permit Policies and Procedures, the Implementation Team was of the opinion that two general issues cross-cut a number of the specific recommendations: (1) the need for fewer and simpler procedures in the permitting process; and (2) the need for maximum objectivity in all decision-making that impinges upon banding clients.  The Team also stressed the importance of allowing opportunity for comment by the banding public on all discretionary policy recommendations, before they become final.  If [comments invited] appears next to a topic heading in this document, banders are invited to submit comments to the Chief, Bird Banding Laboratory, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, MD 20708-4037  (John_Tautin@usgs.gov).

A.  Roles of the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The 1993 transfer of BBL from a management agency with regulatory responsibilities (the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)) to a research agency (the National Biological Service, and later the US Geological Survey (USGS)) created uncertainties about the roles, authorities and responsibilities regarding bird banding and bird banding permits.  The Implementation Team made certain decisions aimed at defining these roles and responsibilities of the respective agencies.

1.  USGS  (BBL) will retain full responsibility for issue and management (including review, renewal, and revocation) of bird-banding permits, but will consult with FWS' Office of Migratory Bird Management (MBMO) in advance of any such actions that could have practical implications for the FWS.  This liaison function will be codified in an existing agreement between USGS and FWS.

2.  FWS, not BBL, has responsibility for enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as it relates to the banding of birds.  FWS will maintain full responsibility for issuing Special Use Permits, Collection Permits, Salvage Permits, Endangered Species Permits and other migratory bird permits. If BBL becomes aware of an allegation of unauthorized use of bands on migratory birds, BBL will notify the appropriate FWS authorities of the alleged violation.  BBL will take no further actions unless requested by FWS.

3.  The salvage provision of bird banding permits will be modified and limited to reflect FWS' pre-eminent responsibility for regulating salvage of birds (See H).

4.  Roles and responsibilities of the BBL and FWS will be clarified as needed through amendment of language in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations-Wildlife and Fisheries (50 CFR).
 B.  Types of Banding Permits   [Comments invited]

1.  Master Permits are issued to individuals (personal permit) or institutions (station permit with designated responsible individual) who are responsible for all banding carried out under the permit, and who may supervise Subpermittees.

2.  Subpermits are issued to individuals authorized to band under the supervision of a Master permittee, subject to the terms of the Master's permit.

3.   The Conservation Agency Letter of Authorization (Bird Banding Manual page 2-3), which gave blanket authority to State and Federal agencies to have employees and cooperators band without obtaining BBL approval, will be eliminated.    Persons formerly banding under Conservation Agency Letters of Authorization will band as Subpermittees and require approval by BBL.  This will eliminate the often confusing functional distinction between Subpermits and the Conservation Agency Letter of Authorization, and it will enable a more uniform and fair permitting process, and help assure that all banders meet qualifications standards.

 C.  Criteria for Issuing Master Banding Permits   [Comments invited]

1.  Qualifications:   Whether applying for a personal permit or as the responsible individual for a station permit, applicants for Master banding permits must provide clear evidence of competent banding skills.  Preferably, but not necessarily, this evidence will be certification at the Permittee level by the North American Bird Banding Council (NABC), a partner organization representing ornithological organizations and associations whose members use banding as a tool in their work.  (See http://www.nmnh.si.edu/birdnet/nabc).  Applicants for master permits who are not NABC-certified must provide evidence that they meet or exceed the level of experience required for NABC certification. Applicants seeking a permit strictly for educational purposes must be certified at the more rigorous Trainer level by the NABC, or provide evidence that they meet or exceed the level of experience required for NABC certification at the Trainer level.  BBL will develop a Memorandum of Understanding with NABC and work with NABC to develop and publicize clear qualifications standards for banders.  These standards will apply equally to applicants for new permits and holders of existing permits, and to both personal and station permits, i.e., individuals responsible for station permits must meet the same qualification standards as holders of personal permits.

2.  Purpose:   Applicants for new or renewing (See L.) Master banding permits must include a coherent project proposal that describes the purpose and scope of the banding, and how their specific objectives are best accomplished through study of individually marked, wild birds.  The "purpose" section will include an explanation of how the banding will advance avian biology, avian conservation, avian conservation education, or avian management.  The "scope" section will include a definitive list of bird species or species groups that will be banded, the means of capture, the size(s) and types of bands required, a description of auxiliary markers requested and the marking scheme proposed, an estimate of the number of banded birds of each species required for each year of the project, and the time frame necessary to answer the question(s) posed.  The permit will be issued only for the banding project specifically described in the proposal.

To be approved, projects must have defined biological, conservation, conservation education, or management objectives dependent on banding and achievable through the procedures proposed and with the minimal scope necessary to achieve the stated objectives.

3.  Conservation Impact:   Applicants for master banding permits must include an evaluation and statement of the potential impact of the project on birds and their populations.  For approval, the project proposed must not pose an unusual or unacceptable level of risk to the welfare of the population(s) under study.  In questionable cases, the BBL will consult with the FWS' MBMO  before making such a determination.    Banding projects will not be required to have formal Animal Care and Use Committee approvals, but all banding must comply with the principles, spirit and intent of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (see J.)

4.  Administrative Burden:   Applicants for master banding permits must include information sufficient to enable the BBL to assess the administrative burden associated with managing the banding project proposed.  To be approved, the project proposed should not impose an excessive level of administrative cost on the BBL relative to the importance of the project.  In the event of such a determination, the BBL will contact the applicant, explain the concern, and attempt to negotiate a modified proposal that would be administratively cost-effective.  The BBL will develop a set of criteria for administrative tolerance and include these as guidelines in the application package.

D.   Criteria for Issuing Subpermits   [Comments invited]

1.  Master permittees may have Subpermittees who band within the scope of the Master's  banding authorization.

2. Subpermittees must meet the same NABC based qualification standards as Master permittees (see C. 1.), and the project(s) they work on must meet the same requirements for purpose, conservation impact, and administrative burden required of the Master, unless the Subpermittee's work is sufficiently limited to warrant exception.  For example, a Subpermittee new to banding and working on a single, tractable species would not be expected to have the qualifications of one who might operate a large-scale, multiple species project. Master permittees are responsible for arranging any necessary training and assuring that their Subpermittees meet qualification standards.   Subpermittees may band without direct supervision if so authorized by the Master Permittee.

3.  Master permittees must submit the names of Subpermittee applicants to BBL as they are designated, along with evidence of qualifications and a project description (including, purpose, conservation impact, and administrative burden), if different from that on which the Master's  own permit is based.  If approved, the Master's permit will be amended accordingly to list the Subpermittee and cover her/his project.

4.  If BBL finds deficiencies in the proposal or the potential Subpermittee's qualifications, BBL will promptly notify the Master permittee of the unacceptability and confer on methods of resolution.  The potential Subpermittee will not be permitted to band until the proposal and/or qualifications are deemed acceptable by BBL.  Once Subpermittees are approved by BBL, Master permittees are free to communicate authorization to their Subpermittees and manage them in whatever manner is most convenient.  BBL will no longer actually issue subpermits, per se.  Instead, while engaged in banding, the Subpermittee must carry a copy of the Master's permit which documents the Subpermittee's authorization to band.

5.  Birds banded by Subpermittees are reported by the Master permittee on her/his own banding schedules.  The Master bears full responsibility for the distribution of bands to Subpermittees and for accuracy of the Subpermittees' records.

E.  Species Designations on Banding Permits   [Comments invited]

1.  To better manage authorized banding activities and economize band management, the activities authorized on banding permits will become more specific.  BBL permits will follow the Canadian Bird Banding Office's (BBO) model for permits, which indicates species, species groups, or projects on the banding permit, adding additional groups as necessary.   Species or species groups listed on the permit will be limited to those specified in the bander's approved projects.   In some cases, permits may be project specific, e.g., "Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) banding only". Bands issued will be limited to sizes and quantities necessary to carry out the project. The objective is to make permits and bands issued consistent with approved projects.

2. Authorization to band certain sensitive species, e.g. hummingbirds, may require special qualifications that will be made explicit by the BBL in cooperation with NABC.  Therefore, a permit allowing banding of, say, breeding birds of eastern deciduous forests, will state certain exceptions, e.g., hummingbirds, if the special qualifications for those species are not met.

3.  Applicants, or already permitted banders, wishing to band rehabilitated birds must meet the same criteria as for any other banding project.

F.  Auxiliary Marking Authorizations  [Comments invited]

Auxiliary marking will be authorized on the master permit proper, and not as a separate permit.  Marking authorizations will ensure compatibility with different marking schemes.  BBL will maintain a database of authorizations and require that banders coordinate with others using similar schemes.

G.   Special Equipment Authorizations  [Comments invited]

Capture techniques such as mist nets, rocket nets and chemical agents, which require special training to use, will continue to be specified on permits when authorized.  If such techniques require pre-authorization from other agencies, the applicant will be so informed and the restriction noted on the permit letter. Feather and blood sampling will also require special authorization from BBL, but not from other agencies.

H.    The Salvage Provision of Federal Bird Banding Permits

1.  The bird-banding permit will authorize banders to salvage birds that may die during a banding operation, but not to salvage birds from other sources such as road kills.  This significant change in policy emphasizes the banding authority of a banding permit and de-emphasizes the salvage authority, which was often misunderstood and sometimes abused.  50 CFR will be amended to reflect the policy change, and the official name of a bird banding permit will be changed from "Federal Bird Marking and Salvage Permit" to "Federal Bird Banding Permit".  Although the reference to "salvage" in the name of the bird banding permit will be deleted, the salvage authority (and its limits) will be stated on the permit.  Banders may hold birds salvaged during banding operations for up to six months.  After that, requirements for management of birds salvaged under a bird banding permit will be identical to those of the FWS Salvage Permit, i.e., the birds must be reposited in an FWS authorized collection.  Banders wishing to salvage birds obtained by means other than their banding operation must obtain a FWS' Salvage Permit.

2.  Salvage of birds from banding operations should be rare events.

3.  Banders will not be permitted to retain their banding permits strictly for the purpose of salvage of dead birds.

I.  Waterfowl (Game Bird) Banding   [Comments invited]

1.  Permits may be issued to any qualified applicant for banding waterfowl or other migratory game birds.  In such cases, the BBL will forward applications for migratory game bird banding permits to the FWS' MBMO to review for any possible conflicts with Federal population management programs.  In the event of a potential conflict, the BBL will advise the applicant on appropriate coordination that must be made.

2.  State and Federal agencies will be authorized to band by BBL in the same manner as individuals, research institutions and universities (See D.).  The Conservation Agency Letter of Authorization presently used by State and Federal agencies to "deputize" banders will be discontinued (See B 3).  State and Federal agency-sponsored waterfowl banders will fall under the Subpermittee rules outlined in Section D.   In addition to effecting a more uniform and fair permitting process, this new policy should also result in a higher standard for participation in waterfowl banding programs.

J.   Animal Care and Welfare Responsibilities

Banding projects will not be required to have formal Animal Care and Use Committee approvals, but all banding must comply with the principles, spirit and intent of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-579) and its amendments (P.L. 94-279, even though the Act presently excludes birds and most field studies.  Banders must also band in accordance with the high ethical standards of animal use and care reflected in guiding documents from the NABC and The Ornithological Council (OC).  For details and expectations, refer to  (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/birdnet/nabc) and the OC's 1997 GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF WILD BIRDS IN RESEARCH by A. S. Gaunt, et al. The burden of ethical and legal compliance with these animal welfare standards will be on the bander.

K.   Criteria for Issue and Return of Bands  [Comments invited]

BBL is developing a new, electronic band management system for issue, inventory and return of bands.  The intent of the system is to track more precisely what bands have been issued to banders.   This will help assure that bands are issued consistent with species or groups authorized on the bander's permit, and that banders use and report previously issued bands before being issued significant quantities of new ones.  The new system will also facilitate the reintegration of returned bands into the inventory.  When bands are no longer needed, either due to completion of the project, or inactivation of the permit, unused bands will be returned to BBL for accounting and possible reissue to other banders.

L.  Banding Permit Renewals and Reporting   [Comments invited]

1.  Banders will be required to apply for renewal and furnish a report on permitted activities.  (The format of the report has yet to be developed).   Applications for renewals will be subject to the same requirements as original applications (See C 2,3,4). Both existing and future permittees shall meet the same standards for renewal and reporting.

2.  The current two year renewal cycle will be extended to four years.  Banders will be reminded six months before the expiration of their permits that they must reapply if renewal is desired.

3.  All "valid-until-revoked" permits, which now typically are issued to State and Federal conservation agencies, will be converted to regular permits and be subject to a standard review and renewal cycle.

M.  Permit Suspension and Revocation   [Comments invited]

1.  BBL will retain the right to amend, suspend or revoke banding permits for just cause.  BBL will consult with BBO, NABC and OC to develop firm, clear, written criteria for amending, suspending or revoking banding permits.  Examples of conditions that might trigger amendment, suspension or revocation might include failure to submit banding records, violation of Federal or State laws and regulations pertaining to migratory birds, and failure to band in accordance with animal welfare and care guidelines.  50 CFR will be updated to reflect the criteria for amending, suspending or revoking banding permits.

2.  Violations by Subpermittees will be considered violations by the Master permittee under whom the Subpermittee bands.

N.  Banding Permit Appeal Procedures

1.  The Director, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, will be the first level of appeal for adverse BBL permit actions (denials, suspensions, revocations).  The Chief Biologist, USGS Biological Resources Division, will be the final level of appeal.
2.   The relevant regulations in 50 CFR will be changed to reflect the appeal process.

O.    Tax Vouchers

The BBL will not vouch for expenses itemized by banders for income tax deductions, but BBL will, on request from a bander, verify the permit and provide a summary of bandings submitted during the tax year.

P.  Web Access to Banding Permit Documents   [Comments invited]

Permit application forms and all documents included or referred to (e.g. animal welfare guidelines) in the banding application package will be made available through the BBL home page.

Q.  Summary

Several significant changes are included among the Permit Policies and Procedures established by the Implementation Team, to be effected by BBL:

The Conservation Agency Letter of Authorization is eliminated  (B. 1.)
NABC standards for bander qualifications are adopted by BBL (C.1.)
Purpose, conservation impact and administrative burden of proposed banding will be considered by BBL when issuing permits (C. 2-4.)
Permits will become more specific regarding authorized banding activities (E.)
The salvage provision of bird banding permits will be limited to salvage of birds dying during banding operations (H.)
Animal care and welfare concerns become more of a consideration in banding matters (J)
Band issue will be linked more closely to, and limited by, permit authorization (K.)
Banders will be required to apply for permit renewal and furnish a report on permit activities (L. 1.)
The permit renewal cycle will be extended to four years, and "valid-until-revoked" permits are eliminated (L. 2-3.)

R. Implementation schedule

The new Permit Policies and Procedures will be implemented gradually as BBL operations are "re-engineered" and capabilities for implementing changes develop.   Some changes will be effected immediately, e.g., greater consideration for animal care and welfare.  Some changes will be effected as soon as details can be communicated to banders, e.g., adoption of NABC standards for bander qualifications.  Some changes, e.g., the link between band issue and permit authorizations, will not occur until BBL's new computer system is ready in early 2001.
 

OC's response to BBL Letter 3:

20 July 1999

John Tautin
US Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
12100 Beech Forest Road STE-4037
Laurel, MD 20708-4037

Thank you for sharing the May 19, 2000 letter to banders with the Ornithological Council. We only received this letter on June 28, 2000 and so were unable to respond more promptly. Although you solicited comments on only certain parts of Appendix II, we would like to address certain other issues in both Appendix I and Appendix II. We have taken the liberty of suggesting how the policy might be changed to be more consistent with the 1998 Review Panel Report and Recommendations.

Our primary concern is that the reasons for the announced changes are not stated, so it is hard to assess whether these changes will accomplish the BBL's purpose. In discussions among OC Board members and other banders, there was speculation that the these changes were needed either to reduce the number of banders in order to reduce demand on the BBL or because the BBL had concluded that the data submitted by "recreational" banders does not contribute to our understanding of wild birds. If the first is true, we recognize that the BBL is underfunded. However, it was said by all that this should not justify restriction of banding permits. Furthermore, the changes proposed by BBL will increase the workload of its staff in that more applications will have to be filed (not only because the "valid until revoked" permits will no longer be issued but also because every Master Bander will have to submit a separate application for every project and because each application will require more scrutiny). Several suggested that BBL charge permit application fees and at least recoup the cost of the bands themselves, and from these preliminary discussions, I believe OC would be likely to support the imposition of such fees. Of course, if lack of funding is the reason for this new policy, then OC will take the lead in seeking additional funding for BBL.

There was concern that the premise that these data are not valuable is largely untested and probably incorrect. It was first noted that the problem might be not that the data are not valuable, but that they are not analyzed. If so, this is not the fault of the banders themselves. The only aspect of this situation that can be attributed to the banders is that some have failed to computerize their records, making them difficult to retrieve and analyze. However, there are solutions to this problem other than restricting the issuance of banding permits. For instance, through the North American Banding Council, the regional banding councils, or other organizations such as state and local ornithological societies, volunteers could be found to computerize these records. Second, banding data provide information that other forms of migration studies, such as radar studies, do not provide. For instance, banding data help detect differences in male and female migratory patterns. If banding is limited to the few professional researchers who are working on specific projects, then there may not be enough banding data, let alone data across a broad range of species, to make these kinds of observations. Finally, one should not overlook the importance of observation in the hypothetico-deductive process. Observations generate the questions that in turn generate hypotheses that can be tested.

It was also suggested that banding serves as a valuable educational tool. One prominent and highly-regarded ornithologist said that his rather casual interest in birding was waning, when he came upon a banding demonstration. Not only was his interest in birds re-ignited, but he also decided to become an ornithologist. Only a handful may be inspired to study birds, but many more will become interested in birds and bird conservation.

This letter and the appendices purport to implement the recommendations of the 1998 North American Bird Banding Program review. That review states,

  All banding data are potentially valuable if collected carefully and under appropriate animal welfare guidelines. At the same time, the relative value of banding data, and thus the value to cost ratio, varies greatly with the type of banding and is generally much greater when part of well-designed or directed research projects. It would be difficult and probably a waste of effort for the BBL/BBO to try to determine for which projects the costs exceed the potential value of the data. A more fruitful approach is to put effort into increasing the value of banding data (e.g., by steering banders to particularly valuable projects, increasing bander training opportunities, encouraging greater reporting of recovered bands), and decreasing the costs (e.g., through electronic data entry and data checking by banders). Both avenues hold great promise."

OC suggests:
Ä The premise that "recreational banding data" are not valuable should be tested through the peer-review process before it becomes the basis for policy.
Ä Rather than precluding non-hypothesis based banding, it would better to organize this group of banders into a coordinated program for the purpose of migration monitoring or other research-based effort that requires banding data. These banders could join established programs such as MAPS or the BBL could help match banders with other research projects.
Ä Roundtable discussions be held to discuss this issue; ornithologists and banders should be invited to participate. OC offers to organize these roundtables.

OC is extremely concerned about the criteria for issuing Master Banding Permits. This new requirement is contrary to the recommendations of the 1998 review, which stated,

 The value of banding data, particularly if not part of an individual research project, can be greatly enhanced by steering banders toward multi-bander projects
 that require large amounts of data to answer particular research questions. Thus, the BBL/BBO should work with researchers to identify banding efforts that are most needed and should actively encourage multi-bander research projects so identified. Nevertheless, we do not endorse a policy requiring a peer-reviewed, approved research plan before a banding permit can be issued or changes made to an existing one. Not only would the logistics, delays, and expenses attendant on such reviews be unacceptable, but peer reviews would be fatally weakened by the inability to enforce the proposed line of research, especially when banders are not being paid by the permitting agency. A project outline submitted with the request for issuance or renewal of a permit may still be useful as a basis for steering some banders to more valuable projects, as well as for determining training requirements and need for bands (emphasis added).

We recognize that the new requirement expressed in Appendix II.C.2 could be seen as a definition of the existing requirement for a well-developed study plan. However, even if that is the case, we are concerned about:

Ä the standards by which the project proposal will be judged
Ä who will judge the proposals
Ä the need to submit a separate proposal for each project
Ä the possible delays that may occur in issuing a permit if every application must go through this process
Ä the lack of an independent scientific review process

The first of these - the extent to which a project proposal will be judged and the standards by which it will be judged - is probably the most difficult to resolve. As you know from our recent correspondence (June 28), we have also discussed this issue with the FWS Permits Reform Team and have asked Teiko Saito, who heads that effort, to holding an informal roundtable discussion with ornithologists and other regulated researchers about this issue. I was glad to hear that the BBL would be willing to participate in such a discussion.

OC suggests that BBL follow the recommendation of the Review Team that a project outline be submitted rather than a peer-reviewed research plan be submitted. If BBL proceeds with this requirement, we suggest that BBL refrain from implementing this new policy until such time as this discussion can be held and some mutually-agreed upon understandings can be reached.

However the proposals are to be judged, it is essential that they be judged by scientists with the appropriate expertise. With all due respect to the BBL staff and their colleagues at PWRC, the full range of ornithological expertise is expansive. Unless BBL intends to confer with other ornithologists outside PWRC, there will undoubtedly be issues that BBL staff are not qualified to assess.

OC urges BBL to state clearly that outside experts will be consulted whenever there is a substantial scientific question to be resolved.

We question the need to submit a separate application for each project. In addition to the increased burden on BBL, we are concerned that this requirement will have a detrimental impact on research. It is not uncommon that opportunities to expand a research project occur, or that either logistics or early results require a restructuring of the project. Sometimes, one comes across something that is of great interest. If a separate application is needed each time the parameters of a project change, or a scientist wants to pursue a new avenue of investigation that could not have been foreseen when the initial application was filed, then valuable research opportunities will be lost. If the scientist chooses to proceed before the new or amended permit can be issued, he faces permit revocation or even criminal prosecution. This is a reversion to earlier, more restrictive permit practices. The Office of Migratory Bird Management and other FWS permitting offices are moving towards more liberal permit practices and policies, in part to avoid the unfortunate incidents that occurred when scientists took advantage of serendipitous events to learn more about birds.

OC suggests that Master Permits authorize a wide range of studies, rather than a single project per application. This suggestion is consistent with the 1998 Review Panel's recommendations.

Given the size of the BBL staff, we are also concerned about timeliness of permit issuance and renewal. With 2,000 master permits outstanding, the requirement that a project proposal be submitted for each proposal and renewal means that the three wildlife biologists at BBL and the BBL section chief will be responsible for reviewing hundreds of applications each year. Even if there are no disputes or requests for additional information, permit issuance could slow significantly.

OC asks that this policy state the anticipated time for permit issuance and renewal so that applicants will be able to determine how long it will take to obtain a permit.

The new policy provides for an internal appeal process that begins with the director of the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and ends with the Chief Biologist, USGS Biological Resources Division. Recognizing that these individuals are eminent biologists, we are nonetheless concerned that there is no provision for independent scientific review. Although BBL cannot delegate the final decision to a nongovernmental scientist or review panel, it would be valuable to refer disputed denials, suspensions and revocations that involve substantial scientific issues to such a panel to obtain an impartial, expert-level evaluation.

Another aspect of section C.2 is problematic. It can be very difficult to provide a definitive list of bird species or species groups that will be banded, unless if by species group, one can list "birds except threatened and endangered species, hummingbirds, waterfowl, and raptors" or something equally broad. It also implies that a bander will have violated the terms of the permit if she bands a non-target species (but otherwise legal species) that is captured. If the BBL does not want non-target species banded, it should say so. Banders should not have to risk their permits and face potential law enforcement action because of the lack of clarity in BBL policy.

Section C.3, requiring an analysis of the potential impact of the project on birds and their populations, is troubling for two reasons. First, it implies that the BBL is concerned with animal welfare issues. This perception emanates not only from this language, but from a statement at the end of the paragraph stating that banding projects must comply with the principles, spirit, and intent of the Animal Welfare Act. It is not the responsibility of the BBL, or even of the FWS, to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. That responsibility is given by the AWA to the Secretary of Agriculture. Obviously, the Ornithological Council is concerned about the ethical and humane treatment of birds used in research. It is for that very reason that we publish Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research.  Our concern here is that the BBL is imposing a requirement on banders that has no authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Another reference to the Animal Welfare Act is found in section J. Here, ironically, BBL notes that the AWA regulations expressly exclude birds and most field studies. This is further reason to delete this reference from this policy. Even more ironically, though, most Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees review research proposals involving birds, despite these exclusions. So, BBL should appreciate that ornithologists are already complying with the AWA and there is no reason to include this requirement in this BBL policy.

What is more worrisome about section C.3, though, is the requirement that the master bander evaluate the potential impact of the project on bird populations. We note that according to BBL statistics, only 744,150 birds were banded in 1995 (the only year for which data are reported on the BBL website). It is known that banding has little effect on birds. The literature is extensive, but it can be stated that generally, there is no increased mortality caused by most research methods. It has been demonstrated that: taking of blood samples did not result in increased mortality (Bigler, Hoff, and Scribner 1977); the use of patagial tags (wing markers) did not affect bird mobility, physical condition as measured by weight changes, or survival (Curtis, Braun, and Ryder 1983); banding - only one injury caused by color bands in 834 observations, no injuries caused by metal bands (Gratto-Trevor 1994);  tail-mounted radio-tags did not result in reduced copulatory behavior or frequency, prey delivery rates, or survival rates in Lesser Kestrels (Hiraldo, Donazar, and Negro 1994). Therefore, the scientific evidence suggests that cumulatively, bird banding has no impact on bird populations.

OC suggests that the BBL eliminate this section. It is interesting to note that the FWS  is in the process of liberalizing its collecting permit policy because it has made a determination that collecting does not have a significant impact on species or local populations.

Even assuming that banding and the other activities that can be allowed under a banding permit (auxiliary marking, blood and feather sampling) can result in mortality under some circumstances, that evaluation would require that the bander have reliable information about population sizes and trends. Obviously, for migration banding, that kind of information can be difficult to obtain. The birds passing through a given area on migration represent numerous breeding populations. Even for behavioral studies or productivity studies, in which a limited population is studied, it can be impossible to determine potential impacts on the population. It would require knowing all the causes of mortality and the relative importance of each mortality factor and somehow being able to foresee how much mortality the population will sustain over the study period. It also requires life history data for the species. Only then can one model the potential impact of the loss of a certain number of individuals of a certain age and sex on the population. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine when mortality is due to the permitted activities or is properly attributable to some other cause. For instance, a bird with endocardial parasites may die while in the hand or shortly after release. However, the capture and banding of the bird most likely just hastened an already imminent death. This requirement could also force researchers to conduct separate studies on the effects of banding on reproductive success and survival if such studies have not already been conducted for the species in question.

Again, OC suggests that this section be deleted.

Our final concern is that this letter changes both the procedural and substantive aspects of banding permit requirements without complying with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to publish proposed regulatory changes and provide an opportunity for comment. Sending a letter to current banders does not satisfy these requirements. The regulated community includes many ornithologists and students who do not currently hold banding permits, but who may very well need banding permits in the future. Appendix II of the letter identifies the BBL as a research agency and states that FWS, a management agency with regulatory responsibilities, maintains full responsibility for enforcing the MBTA as it relates to the banding of birds. If that is the case, then FWS should be issuing these new banding policies, not BBL, and it should do so in compliance with the APA.

We do not object to the BBL developing policies, but if the BBL, as a research agency, is not able to comply with the legal requirements for regulatory development, then the BBL at most acts in an advisory capacity to the FWS with regard to such policies as it may develop. It is still incumbent upon the FWS to comply with the APA before these policies may be implemented.

There is no doubt that the policies BBL proposes will change the  requirements for obtaining a banding permit. The existing regulation (50 CFR 21.22) requires only that the applicant state the species and numbers proposed to be banded or marked, the purpose of banding or marking, and state or states for which the permit is requested, and the name and address where salvage birds will be deposited. The applicant must also comply with 50 CFR 13.2 (a) which requires general information such as applicant identification. There is no requirement that an applicant submit a "coherent project proposal that describes the purpose and scope of the banding, and how their specific objectives are best accomplished through study of individually marked, wild birds."

The BBL's North American Banding Manual does refer to a "well-developed study plan showing a valid need for a banding permit." However, incorporation of a policy into a Manual does not elevate the policy into enforceable regulation. In fact, about two years ago, the FWS decided that all permit policies would be upgraded from internal policy to formal regulation. Even if the entire Manual became regulation by incorporation, through a reference in 50 CFR 21.22, a change of this nature should only be undertaken through the formal regulatory process.

We urge the BBL to submit this policy to the FWS Office of Migratory Bird Management for compliance with the APA and to comport with FWS' own determination that permit policies should be codified in regulation.

The letter and appendices present these policies as a fait accompli, yet invited comment. We hope that comment was invited because the BBL is interested in the views of the regulated community and plans to consider those views before making final decisions. We hope that these comments are useful to the BBL as it proceeds to complete implementation of the Review Panel's recommendations.

Sincerely,
 

Ellen Paul
Executive Director

Citations
Bigler, W.J., G.L.Hoff, and L.A. Scribner. 1977.  Survival of mourning doves unaffected by  withdrawing blood samples.  Bird-Banding 48:168
Curtis, P.D., C.E.Braun, and R.A. Ryder.  1983. Wing markers: visibility, wear, and effects on  survival of band-tailed pigeons.  J. Field Ornithol. 54:381.
Gatto-Trevor, C.L. 1994. Banding and foot loss: an addendum.  J. Field Ornithol. 65:133.
Hiraldo, F., J. Donazar, and J. Negro.  1994.  Effects of tail-mounted radio tags on adult lesser  kestrels.  J. Field Ornithol. 65:466
 

Return to the Ornithology and Society page

Return to BIRDNET Home Page