Marlene Condon's column “Birders are turning into raptors” misses the mark. Birding probably has brought more people into the fold of nature lovers than any other hobby, leading to the steady increase in legal protection for natural areas. We cannot move wisely or prioritize our goals without sound biological data derived from continent-wide bird banding programs that Condon criticizes.
Banding is executed under federal license by highly trained and experienced biologists, with the health and safety of the birds being the foremost concern. Moreover, banding laboratories often support important research that can be done nowhere else.
At Powdermill Nature Reserve, we record birds captured during banding to build a library of nocturnal flight calls that is used to assess nighttime migrations and direct the placement of wind turbines to areas that birds do not use as flyways. Additionally, we test many species of birds to measure how well they see various experimental glass formulas, helping to develop windows that birds can see and thus avoid lethal collisions.
Bird banding and associated programs not only help us understand birds and make conservation decisions, but can also help make technology more bird-friendly.
John W. Wenzel & Luke DeGroote
The writers, respectively, direct the Carnegie Museum of Natural History's Powdermill Nature Reserve in Rector, Westmoreland County, and manage its bird banding lab.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.