Bob,
I will concede most of the points that you made in your post, even though
they were a bit hyperbolic in some respects. I was just going to respond to you
by private e-mail. However, I felt my concerns required some additional
explanation for others that might be interested. I beg the indulgence of the
moderator for just this one post.
I am a retired wildlife biologist and refuge manager. I retired with over 30
years of Federal Service including 26 years with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service. For 14 years I worked in the ESA and CITES programs in the Washington
Office. During my career I banded thousands of waterfowl and some raptors and
passerines. Although, I acknowledge the value of banding in certain
situations, much of our waterfowl banding was overly repetitive. The recovery
and
recapture data was quite predictable from year to year. When I was the Asst.
Refuge Manager at Swan Lake NWR we banded more than 6000 Canada geese each year
which was far in excess of any requirement for biological data.
My problem with the permanent banding stations is that they gather virtually
the same information year after year, most of which has limited practical
application. In other words how much repetition is really necessary and do the
results really have significant management implications. Having said that, I
agree that these operations do make a very important contribution to public
education and awareness and can be supported for that reason alone.
Larry Kline
