Commentary on the 1977 Annual Report

That someone so long removed from the banding scene should comment on the 1982 bird banding report of the WBBA is presumptious.This I pointed out to Dr. Mc-Nicholl when he made the request.But Martin is both persistent and persuasive; he refused to accept my protests of ignorance and inadequacy, so the following is offered as the view of a long-time non-member and non-bander.Today as I write I wish that I had been adamant in refusal.Yet I do hold opinions on the subject of bird banding, some of which seemed to creep into "From the President," (NABB 7:71, 1982), and what better opportunity to present them than herein!The Annual Report for 1982 is presented in two parts which are admirably suited to a variety of forms of analysis.My admiration and compliments go to the compiler, Philip M. Walters.I shall not deny the reader the pleasure of scanning the report in order to note, almost at a glance, who banded the most birds and the most species, which species were banded in greatest numbers and which the least, how his or her own efforts compared with those of others, and so on (see accompanying table).Nor shall I deny the statistician the excitement of extracting the nuggets of his own specific interests from such a rich body of ore.But one point likely to be overlooked by all but a few old-timers with good memories struck me forcefully.That was a considerable increase in proportion of "professional/academic" or "agency" banders compared with "amateur/ backyard" or "non-agency" banders.So I did a litfie analysis of my own. Although theReport does not lend itself to a clear distinction between the two, I found that 157, or 43%, of active banders and 25, or 57%, of sub-permittees appeared to be supported by some agency such as a government wildlife service or an educational institution.If these figures err, I believe it is on the conservative side.Thus about half of the banders in 1982 operated under sponsorship presumably for financial gain or professional advancement.Figures from the 1930s are not now available to me but my recollection is that in those days the volunteer backyard or garden-variety bander was heavily predominant.Just when the trend towards "agency" banding started to show ascendancy I do not know, but I would hazard a guess that "project" banding fostered it.Certainly the requirement of a stated project in order to receive a permit saw the end of the banding careers of many "backyard" banders including myself.I am, therefore, delighted to see that Edgar T. Jones and Kathryn B. Burk still enjoy great success in their "backyard" operations.Eddie's meticulously kept records were generously made available to me for use in publications on Alberta birds, and I found time to extract for publication only a small portion of the valuable information contained therein.Similarly, the records of Kathryn Burk and dozens of other dedicated banders must be equally rich source material which, I'm sure, would be willingly opened to examination by serious researchers.We need many more of this kind of bander.Over the years, with the increase of "agency" bantiers, there has been a tendency towards identifying them as professionals and "non-agency" banders as amateurs.Such a distinction is odious since it carries with it the implication that the latter are less knowledgeable than the former.In my experience the average backyard bander is no amateur; he has breadth and depth in local taxonomic knowledge which many "agency" banders might envy.If the words amateur and professional are to creep into the parlance of bird-banding, it can only be on the same basis as in sports where the professional receives tangible rewards for his work while the amateur does not.It is probably obvious by now that, like others mentioned in your President's message (loc.cit.),I hold a brief for the "non-agency" or "backyard" bander.But I would be among the first to acknowledge that agencysupported projects have produced a mass of published information which might otherwise not have been obtained.I saw the difficulties and discouragement that Dr. William Rowan, my former mentor, colleague, and friend, had to face while pursuing his initial experiments on the effects of photoperiodism on birds, and cannot help wondering if his productive life would have been extended if agency assistance had been as readily available then as it is today.He accepted advice and help from layman and expert alike.He would have

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.