Permit Policies and Procedures Task Force Report

Task Force on Permit Policies and Procedures
United States Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Mary Gustafson
Lucie Métras
B. H. Powell
Graham Smith
Florence Soehnlein
John Tautin
H. Randolph Perry, Jr. (Chair)

I.	Introduction...................................................................................................................................	4
II.	Charge..........................................................................................................................................	4
III.	Products.......................................................................................................................................	4
IV.	Task Force Operations..................................................................................................................	6
V.	A Review of Current Policies and Procedure for the Issuance of Banding Permits...........................	6
VI.	Cost to the Government.................................................................................................................	4
VII.	Appropriate Responsibilities of the FWS and the USGS in Issuing Banding Permits and Enforcing Their Use......................................................................................................................................	4
VIII.	Criteria for Issuance of Banding Permits: Reasons for Banding........................................................	8
IX.	Issuance of Permits: Bander Qualifications......................................................................................	4
X.	Educational Banding......................................................................................................................	4
XI.	Banding Rehabilitated Birds...........................................................................................................	4
XII.	Criteria for Issuance and Return of Bands......................................................................................	4
XIII.	Charging for Bands and/or Permits.................................................................................................	4
XIV.	Species Designations on Banding Permits.......................................................................................	4
XV.	Auxiliary Marking Authorizations...................................................................................................	4
XVI.	Dealing With Illegal Banding..........................................................................................................	4
XVII.	Hummingbird Banding...................................................................................................................	4
XVIII.	Waterfowl Banding........................................................................................................................	4
XIX.	Conflicts of Interest.......................................................................................................................	4
XX.	Student Banding Policy..................................................................................................................	4
XXI.	Banding Permit Renewal and Reporting..........................................................................................	4
XXII.	Permit Appeal Procedures.............................................................................................................	4
XXIII.	Issuance of Banding Permits for Large-Scale Monitoring Projects...................................................	4
XXIV.	Permit Suspension and Revocation.................................................................................................	4
XXV.	Tax Vouchering.............................................................................................................................	4
XXVI.	Special Equipment Authorization....................................................................................................	4
XXVII.	The Salvage Provision of Bird Banding Permits..............................................................................	4
XXVIII.	Animal Care and Welfare Issues Related to Banding......................................................................	4
XXIX.	Report Submitted..........................................................................................................................	4

Appendices (not included with the electronic version of this document)

Appendix I: Minutes for Meetings of the Permit Policies and Procedures Task Force
Appendix II: FWS Manual, Chapter 725 FW 1, "Policies and Responsibilities, Migratory Bird Banding Permits"
Appendix III: "Summary Topic Index by Meeting"

Introduction
The Permit Policies and Procedures Task Force (Task Force) was one of six teams appointed on August 11, 1997, by the Director of the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (Patuxent), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). The teams were appointed to assist the Center Director and an ad hoc Implementation Team consider and implement recommendations made in the September, 1997, report "The North American Bird Banding Program: Into the 21st Century." This report, also known as the "Buckley Report," presented the findings of a team chaired by P. A. Buckley that reviewed the organization and operation of the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) at Patuxent and the broader North American Bird Banding Program.

Ten members were initially appointed to the Task Force: Carol Anderson and Graham Smith representing the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Lucie Métras representing the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS); and Sam Droege, Mary Gustafson, Richard Jachowski, H. Randolph Perry, Jr., B. H. Powell, Florence Soehnlein, and John Tautin representing the USGS. However, the Task Force evolved significantly over time. Perry was appointed Task Force Chair after the first meeting because Jachowski, who served as Chair for the first meeting, was detailed to another Center for several months. Anderson provided excellent contributions to the Task Force from December, 1997, to May, 1998, but was not able to continue her participation. These and other changes reduced the Task Force to an active but dedicated core consisting only of Mary Gustafson, Florence Soehnlein, Lucie Métras, H. Randolph Perry, Jr., B. H. Powell, Graham Smith, and John Tautin, with Marilyn Whitehead providing logistical and staff support.
Charge
The Task Force was charged with making recommendations for improving Bird Banding Permit Polices and Procedures. The ad hoc Implementation Team for the "Buckley Report" gave the Task Force nine charges:
1. Review current permitting processes and procedures;
2. Evaluate and recommend the appropriate responsibilities of FWS and USGS in issuing Banding Permits and enforcing their use;
3. Suggest written criteria for issuance of Banding Permits;
4. Suggest training/experience requirements for permits;
5. Suggest written criteria for issuance of bands requested by authorized banders;
6. Suggest written criteria for revocation of permits;
7. Provide expectations for return of unused bands;
8. Suggest written criteria and procedures for issuance of auxiliary markers; and
9. Consider options for dealing with unsanctioned, unofficial, private banding.
However, the Task Force recognized early that making sound recommendations on permitting procedures and policies required reviewing a much larger list of topics. Through several brainstorming sessions, the Task Force identified more than 30 topics of potential improvement in the Permits and Policies area that should be considered by the Task Force. This master list of topics was prioritized repeatedly and used by the Chair to formulate a proposed Agenda prior to each meeting. Task Force members were free to suggest additional business as topics were discussed and at times similar topics were grouped to facilitate discussion. The major topics in this report reflect the consolidated list of Task Force business items.

The Implementation Team specified that all interests and ideas were to be considered. However, the overriding considerations of the Task Force in completing the charge were what is best for the North American Bird Banding Program and the stewardship of bird resources and banding data.
Products
The Implementation Team envisioned three types of output from the Task Force:
1. A report presenting and evaluating the above concepts, strategies, operations, issues, suggestions, considerations, and alternatives for permitting.
2. A Task Force recommendation and supporting rationale for a preferred alternative for permit policies and procedures.
3. Draft policy statements, criteria and, if possible, first drafts of regulatory language suitable for public dissemination and incorporation in 50 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR).
However, the recommendations of the Task Force for improving bird banding permit polices and procedures are contained in this one report. Rather than generate three report-type documents initially envisioned by the Implementation Team, the Task Force thought for ease of use that it would be best to formulate all material into one report with each major subject formulated into four key informational areas:
1. The Issue (or Subject Area) and Current BBL Policy;
2. Task Force Recommendation;
3. Rationale for Recommendation; and
4. Reference to Minutes for more detailed information (Minutes are attached as Appendix I to this report).
Two other Appendices are included: Appendix II is FWS manual chapter....and Appendix III is a "Summary Topic Index by Meeting" that provides a list of discussion topics covered during each Task Force meeting.
Task Force Operations
Our recommendations were made on the basis of 23 meetings of the Task Force: one meeting occurred in September 1997 and 22 meetings were held between December 1997 and September 1998. The meetings were generally held weekly with the addition of two one-day working "retreats." The meetings were bolstered by several independent writing assignments and information-gathering tasks. Minutes of all meetings, which provide important technical details about discussion points, were carefully recorded by Task Force members on a rotational basis and reviewed, corrected (if necessary), and approved by the by the Task Force. The Minutes were provided to the Implementation Team as they were approved.
A Review of Current Policies and Procedure for the Issuance of Banding Permits
1. United States
  A potential bander submits a request to the BBL for application materials. In response to the inquiry an application packet is mailed. Two levels of permits issued by the BBL, Master and Subpermit. Master permits carry full status and privileges and are issued to individuals (Personal Permits) or institutions (Station Permits). The returned application is logged in and then reviewed for completeness; if incomplete, the applicant is contacted. Applicants must document their qualifications to band and are required to provide a justification for banding. Basic qualifications considered include practical knowledge of species, ages and sexes of birds, and capture techniques, skill in handling and marking birds with minimal risk, and ability to maintain accurate records. To determine one's basic qualifications, experience as an intern, banding assistant, or Subpermittee; course-work; publications; job experience, etc. are all considered. Applicants are also required to provide three references who can vouch for their qualifications. Applicants opting to band birds officially listed as Federally Threatened or Endangered are additionally required to possess a FWS Endangered/Threatened Species Permit. The entire application packet is sent to the Chief of the BBL for evaluation. The Chief ultimately approves or denies the permit application.
  
  If the permit is issued and an auxiliary marking authorization is requested, the new Permittee's file is forwarded to the Banding Biologist for review. If there are no conflicts, the auxiliary marking authorization is issued. If there are conflicts, a letter of coordination is sent to all affected banders. When the new bander notifies the BBL that they have completed coordination with personnel of existing project(s), the new authorization is issued. A Permittee's authorization may be modified or expanded if sufficient justification is submitted.
  
  Applicants intending to use mist nets, cannon, or rocket propelled nets must have experience in the use of these devices. For approval to take blood and feather samples, the Permittee must request permission in writing with a description of the project, need for sampling, technique and experience (if blood sampling).
  
  Occasionally , permits are issued for banding in foreign countries, for example, to enable studies of migratory birds on their winter grounds in Latin America. Bird Banding Permits have no official standing in foreign countries. They do, however, indicate approval to use Federal bands contingent upon host country approval.
  
  Prerequisites for Subpermits are generally less arduous than those for Master permits. All Subpermit applications are mailed to the Master bander. Subpermittees work under the direction or coordination of a Master Permittee as project assistant, apprentice, employee, student, or in other capacities associated closely to the Master Permittees' work. An application for a Subpermit is reviewed to ensure that the authorizations requested are possessed by the Master Permittee. Subpermit applications are forwarded to the Chief of the BBL for approval with the Master permit file.
  
  Banding Permits are renewable biannually, if the Permittee shows banding activities. Certain government agency (Federal and state) permits are "Valid Until Revoked": the Banding Permit does not expire. The auxiliary marking authorization on the Banding Permit expires every two years. Marking activity is reviewed at renewal and the authorization is renewed if it is active. For Valid Until Revoked permits, a letter is sent with the renewed authorization requesting the agency to reassess its marking needs.
  
  Applicants that are issued Master permits will also be issued bands, reporting forms, and informative material and a copy of the North American Bird Banding Manual. Applicants denied permits, or subject to other adverse decisions by the BBL, have an opportunity for redress; i.e., they may appeal to higher authority. All denied applications are recorded and filed for possible appeal for reconsideration.
  
  United States Banders applying to band birds in Canada, or Canadian banders applying to band birds in the U.S., are required to provide a written project outline along with their current Banding Permit number. If the request is approved, the new Banding Permit will have the same number as the original country's permit. Auxiliary marking requests are reviewed and coordinated in the same manner as for any Permittee in both countries.
2. Canada
  The Canadian Bird Banding Office (BBO) of the Canadian Wildlife Service is responsible for issuing Banding Permits for all projects in Canada and all projects led by Canadian banders outside North America, with the permission of the authorities of the visiting country. In Canada, the application process to issue Banding Permit is similar to the United States process, except Animal Care Committee approval is required for projects in Canada using auxiliary markers.
3. Reference to Minutes
  Additional detail on current policies and procedures can be found in Section VIII and in the Minutes for Meetings 4 (United States) and 5 (Canada).
Cost to the Government

Banding involves costs to the government. These involve not only the costs of the bands themselves but far more importantly the costs of operating the BBL from costs of permit issuance, to band schedule and recovery record processing. Overall, it costs the BBL and BBO about $684.78 per bander per year and $1.31 per bird banded. In addition, government agencies are responsible for a major portion of the annual banding effort. Banding is used by government agencies for research and monitoring purposes. We believe that the BBL is obligated to obtain the maximum scientific information while at the same time minimizing the costs to the resource. Maximizing benefits while minimizing costs allows the government to best meet its stewardship obligations toward this valuable natural resource. Additionally, we believe that government agencies are obligated to utilize their funds efficiently recognizing that the funds result from taxes collected from the citizenry.

The concepts of cost, both to the government and to the resource, and stewardship played a major role in the Task Force's deliberations. A balancing of these concepts shaped our deliberations over who should band, avocational banding, educational banding, reasons for banding, bander training and qualifications, and other topics. Further discussion on banding costs to the government can be found in the Minutes for Meeting XIII (Appendix I).
Appropriate Responsibilities of the FWS and the USGS in Issuing Banding Permits and Enforcing Their Use
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  The responsibilities of the USGS and the FWS with regard to banding need to be clarified. The BBL has been transferred from FWS to USGS but specifics relating to the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies have not been settled. Historically the BBL issued permits, with an appeal process up through Refuges and Wildlife within FWS, and FWS Division of Law Enforcement enforced the regulations.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force believes it imperative that the USGS retain control over band permit issuance. The Task Force believes that the roles and responsibilities of the FWS should remain: enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; issuance of Special Use permits, Collection Permits, Salvage Permits, and Endangered Species Permits; and enforcement related to permitting, including Banding Permits. These roles and responsibilities should be reflected by updating the appropriate language in the CFR and other documents.
3. Rationale
  BBL functions, other than permit issuance, include collecting, maintaining, and making data available to users, issuing bands, and being the clearing house for recovery reports. The Task Force does not believe it is possible to separate out the permitting function from other BBL functions. We believe organization such that the FWS controls band permit issuance and the USGS controls banding by issuance of the actual bands would be unworkable. Such a structure does not recognize the important facilitator and regulatory roles of the BBL, would necessitate an unnecessary duplication in functions, and could not be attempted without a substantial bureaucratic investment by the FWS.
4. Reference to Minutes
  The topic of appropriate responsibilities of the FWS and the USGS in issuing banding permits and enforcing their use was introduced during Meeting 3 and discussed in detail during Meeting 14.
Criteria For Issuance of Banding Permits: Reasons For Banding
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Criteria for issuance of Banding Permits is at the heart of Permit Policies and Procedures. These criteria are a fundamental and important issue, because Banding Permits are required by law, there is but one source of them in each country, and possession of a Banding Permit largely determines whether one can do effective, meaningful research on the movement, survival, and behavior of migratory birds. The importance of the criteria of permit issuance is reflected in the large amount of time devoted to it by the Task Force. The criteria fall into two areas, Qualifications covered in Section IX, and Reasons for Banding covered herein.
  
  Current policies and procedures for issuing Banding Permits are described extensively in Section V; Canada and the United States have similar policies and procedures. Real-case permit applications were presented to the Task Force to illustrate the application of current policies and procedures.
  
  Essentially, current BBL policy relative to Reasons for Banding is based in the July 21, 1993, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual Chapter 725 FW 1, Migratory Bird Banding Permits, C. Justification for Banding (Appendix II). The general criteria call for the prospective bander to demonstrate a need to band and have a well-developed study proposal with a reasonable expectation of success. Priority consideration is given to projects that may significantly benefit conservation of migratory birds, and also to projects that address human economic, health, and safety concerns. No categories of persons or institutions are excluded under the current United States policy, but conservation education is not accepted as a stand-alone justification for banding, and Banding Permits are not issued for recreational purposes or for satisfying simple curiosity about the fates of birds.
  
  Current BBL policy encourages employees of agencies, non-government organizations, offices, businesses, and institutions to band under Master "Station" permits as opposed to banding under their own personal Master permits. Also, students are encouraged to band as Subpermittees under the Master Permits of faculty advisors (see Section XX).
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force came to early consensus and conclusion that prospective banders must have valid reasons for banding. Thus, the Task Force recommends that the BBL require that, in addition to demonstrating qualifications to band, prospective banders demonstrate a need to band and present a project proposal or other justification for banding. This recommendation is contrary to the premise that anyone demonstrating competency should be permitted to band without regard to purpose or need.
  
  The Task Force, however, does not recommend (or present) a detailed list of specifically-accepted reasons for banding. Rather, the Task Force recognizes that the currently-accepted general reasons for banding that tie banding to a bona fide project or scientific study are reasonable and should be retained. The one exception to this generality is that under Section X, the Task Force recommends that The BBL add Conservation Education as a valid reason for banding in a very few limited cases.
  
  The Task Force does recommend that permits not be issued in certain cases where the reasons for banding are:
  1. The desire to add data to the BBL database for unspecified, unforeseen future use;
  2. The belief that all data are important;
  3. The fact that no one is currently banding at some location;
  4. The desire to get recoveries of nongame birds to see where they go;
  5. To satisfy simple curiosity about the fates of birds.
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL maintain its current policies regarding Station Permits and student banders. These Task Force recommendations constitute an implicit endorsement of existing policy, with the above-noted exception regarding conservation education.
3. Rationale
  Banders should be required to justify banding for a number of important reasons:
  1. The government, which administers the banding program, has a stewardship responsibility for migratory birds;
  2. The government has treaty and statutory obligations relative to migratory birds, including in the United States, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Government Performance and Results Act, that call for maximizing effectiveness of programs;
  3. Public funds are expended to support the banding program; and
  4. Banding, although largely beneficial, poses some potential risks to birds.
  In sum, benefits to the government, public, and birds should outweigh the tangible and intangible costs of banding. This cannot be judged if good reasons for banding are not required.
  
  A detailed list of acceptable reasons for banding need not be presented and rationalized. Most reasons for banding fall under the general categories of ecological and behavioral research; monitoring; restoring populations of Endangered or Threatened species; setting hunting regulations; studying effects of environmental contaminants and landscape management practices; and addressing human, economic, health, and safety concerns. At the project level, most banding is well justified. Increasingly, it is well done under the guidance of protocols or study plans, with benefits clearly outweighing costs.
  
  In recommending not to accept reasons for banding such as adding data to the BBL database, contributing to the files, or helping build baseline data for someone else to use, the Task Force disagrees with the premise that all banding data are valuable. Adherents to this premise, including the Buckley Panel , often argue that some day, some how, somebody or some development may arise to make these data valuable for meta-analyzes. Years of practical experience in filling data requests suggests, though, that this is an unlikely scenario. Relative to the size of the database, the BBL does not receive many requests for data sets. While there are benefits to making all data available to potential users, most analyzes of banding data are done by banders using data they collected for specific work or mission related purposes. The one major exception concerns waterfowl banding where data collected by many banders are used extensively in meta-analyzes.
  
  Banding for recreational purposes or to satisfy curiosity about the origins, destinations, and fates of birds is not justified because the individual's benefit (pleasure or trivial knowledge) does not outweigh real costs to government and potential costs to birds. Also, the mere fact that birds are not being banded at some location (typically stated as "my part of the state," "this county," "this side of town," "this unique habitat," etc.) does not mean that they should be.
  
  Station Permits for employees of agencies, non-government organizations, etc., and having students band as Subpermittees under faculty advisors, are recommended as practical means of facilitating banding and minimizing BBL administrative costs.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Criteria for issuance of banding permits and reasons for banding were discussed during Meetings 4, 5, 6, and 15. Also see Section 1.7, C, "Justification for Banding" in the FWS Manual, Chapter 725 FW 1, "Policies and Responsibilities, Migratory Bird Banding Permits," included as Appendix II.
Criteria For Issuance of Banding Permits: Bander Qualifications and the North America Banding Council
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Banders are currently expected to demonstrate adequate banding skills prior to the issuance of a Banding Permit. Theses skills include the ability and knowledge to safety capture, handle, and band birds as well as the knowledge to identify the age and sex of captured birds. Bander training historically involved working as a Subpermittee under a Master bander (or assisting a Master bander) until the skills were mastered. In recent years, commercial training courses have proliferated. The North American Banding Council (NABC), representing North American ornithological organizations and associations whose members utilize banding as a tool is developing standards for trainers and standard training materials. The NABC is currently developing a bander training and certification program at 3 levels: Trainee (Assistant), Permittee, and Trainer, based on standards of knowledge, experience, and skills defined for each level. Training manuals specific to the different levels of permits, as well as to specific groups of species to be banded, are being developed. The objective is to use them as reference material for trainers and prospective banders, as well as to enhance the knowledge and the skills of existing banders.
  
  The BBL and the BBO, in support of the goals and objectives of the NABC, have accepted to sit as ex-officio members on this council and have been participating in the development of training materials and certification process following NABC standards.
2. Recommendation
  Bander training is critical for the banding program. The Task Force recommends that NABC be recognized as a partner of the North American Bird Banding Program. NABC is responsible for the certification process and the banding offices (the BBL and the BBO) will recognize the NABC certification as a competence of banding qualifications and experience. The banding offices will strongly recommend NABC certification for all banders but will not make it mandatory for new banders. The banding offices recognize that training will not be available for all groups in the same time frame, however traditional training methods will continue to be recognized as evidence of suitable training.
3. Rationale
  A standardized North American bander training and certification program will increase the scientific credibility of banding . Under the existing permitting procedures it is difficult for the banding offices to ensure that permits are issued to well-qualified people with well-designed projects/programs due to the lack of standardized training.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Criteria for issuance of banding permits and bander qualifications and the North America Banding Council were discussed during Meetings 4, 5, 6, and 14 (a.m.).
Educational Banding
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Banding solely for educational purposes is not currently permitted. Educational banding does occur but the bander, preferably a Master Bander, has obtained the permit for other reasons, such as research or management.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that Educational Banding be recognized as a valid reason for banding, provided that such a bander meets the following requirements:
  1. The applicant must be a certified Trainer by the North American Banding Council;
  2. The applicant must outline their educational program; and
  3. The applicant will report on their educational banding activities so that they can be monitored.
3. Rationale
  Educational Banding is defined as a bander capturing birds only for demonstration and educational purposes. An example of Educational Banding would be a banding activity conducted at a natural area for public benefit. In this case the banding operation might emphasize the value of specific sites to avian populations and is conducted to build appreciation for birds and natural areas for attendees. Educational Banding can be important: at least one Task Force member cited an Educational Banding demonstration experience as an important motivator affecting their choice of careers.
  
  The potential for a large increase in Banding Permits was noted by the Task Force. School teachers occasionally request Banding Permits for educational purposes. There are over 87,000 public schools in the United States. If only a small portion of personnel from these schools applied for an Educational Banding Permit, a large increase in permit applications would occur accompanied by higher BBL administrative costs.
  
  Another factor causing the Task Force to recommend the establishment of an Educational Banding Permit was that current BBL policy forces banders who currently band for educational purposes to justify their permits on other grounds. The present policy of limiting Educational Banding helps ensure that banding data collected become meaningful parts of, and add value to, valid projects.
  
  The benefits of Educational Banding include:
  1. Educating the public about the value of birds and their habitats;
  2. Channeling careers of future professionals;
  3. Building support for migratory birds conservation;
  4. Providing value-added data to ongoing projects; and
  5. Training banders.
  The drawbacks of Educational Banding include:
  1. Handling birds causes stress to them;
  2. Allowing Educational Banding could result in a large increase in the number of banders;
  3. Allowing Educational Banding would greatly increase BBL costs (bands, administrative support and operational costs); and
  4. Anyone qualified to band could use "education" as their permit justification.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Educational Banding was discussed during Meeting 7 and 8.
Banding Rehabilitated Birds
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Approximately 3,200 FWS Permittees are authorized to rehabilitate sick, injured, or orphaned migratory birds in the United States. A lesser number of permittees rehabilitate birds in Canada. Examples of rehabilitation range from saving individual birds hit by cars to cleaning large numbers of birds affected by oil spills. Rehabilitations often desire post-release information to evaluate the success of their efforts. This information is best obtained through banding or auxiliary markers. Thus, rehabilitations often request Banding Permits, or seek out established banders to band for them.
  
  For reasons described below under Rationale below, the BBL has followed an unwritten, conservative policy in issuing permits for the banding of rehabilitated birds. Routine banding and release of rehabilitated birds ( the majority of cases) is discouraged. However, permits are issued in some cases where applicants have the wherewithal to conduct serious research. These cases typically involve professionally staffed university centers with a good study plan employing radio-transmitters or other markers to obtain post-release data. The BBL's conservative policy has been controversial among individual rehabilitations and their regional, national and international organizations.
2. Recommendation
  The Task force recommends that the BBL continue to support the banding of rehabilitated birds under the following conditions that the bander or prospective bander:
  1. Is qualified to band;
  2. Has the ability to collect data in sufficient quantity to answer key questions; and
  3. Demonstrates that the data collected will be used in a research project.
  Additionally, the incidental banding of rehabilitated Endangered Species should be allowed under any condition, so long as the bander is qualified. The Task Force does not recommend that the BBL support the routine, incidental banding of rehabilitated birds unless they are Threatened or Endangered Species. These Task Force recommendations essentially make the conditions for rehabilitation banding consistent with other banding and affirms and formalizes current BBL policy.
3. Rationale
  The more serious rehabilitations often have legitimate, objective, research questions that lend themselves to scientific investigation. For example, do rehabilitated birds survive as well as normal wild ones, do they behave normally, or does one pre-release treatment result in better survival than another? Post-release data obtained by banding, particularly through the use of auxiliary markers, are essential to answering these questions. Thus, The BBL should support the banding of rehabilitated birds where the banders or prospective banders have the wherewithal to conduct scientific investigations. That wherewithal should be evidenced with a focused and well-developed study plan, preferably backed by a research or academic institution.
  
  On the other hand, the more casual rehabilitations usually do not have the interest or wherewithal to conduct scientific investigations. They tend to be more interested in the fates of individual birds, and they often have a subjective desire to prove success by obtaining recoveries. The approximately 5 percent band recovery rate that results adds incidentally to thousands of existing recoveries that already indicate that some rehabilitated birds survive, migrate, etc. However, these heterogeneous data do not lend themselves to answering fundamental, scientific questions about rehabilitated birds.
  
  Two other factors argue for the BBL not issuing permits for routine, incidental banding of non-endangered birds:
  1. If permits were issued for such incidental banding, up to 3,200 rehabilitations would be eligible; and
  2. Banding records from rehabilitated birds contain a higher percentage of errors and tend not to be complete, both of which increase the cost of data handling.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Banding rehabilitated birds was discussed during Meeting 9.
Criteria for Issuance and Return of Bands
1. Current Policy
  Under the present system, it is difficult to ensure that the sizes of bands issued to the holder of a Banding Permit are consistent with those species and band sizes authorized by the Banding Permit. Additionally, it is very difficult to determine if there exists large inventories of bands in the possession of specific banders that are remaining unused or for which schedules have not been submitted.
  
  Band issue, assisted by a limited computer system, is currently not sufficient to allow the band issue clerk to verify if all bands requested are for species or species groups specifically allowed on the permit. In Canada, this verification is already ongoing and is done by examining authorizations on the permit and also by looking at a Year-End Report, which summarizes number of species and individuals banded under the permit, but the scale of requests for bands and number of active banders is smaller in Canada than in the United States.
  
  Inventory of returned bands typically occurs when a permit is inactivated or when quantities of bands are returned for other reasons. The inventory may be initiated long after the inactivation due to the work involved in determining the bander's inventory and processing returned bands. Often workload does not permit a timely resolution.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends continuing the development of a new computer system. The system being developed will:
  1. Allow for more effective management the issue of bands to Permittees,
  2. Facilitate the verification of bands issued to a specified Permittee by electronically validating authorized species or species groups and band sizes, and
  3. Allow quick reconciliation of returned bands.
3. Rationale
  Band issuance should match what the bander is permitted to do on the Banding Permit. We need better band issue management that will allow the BBL to implement three important checks: (1) bands sizes issued to the bander must match the species authorized to band on the Banding Permit, (2) the inventory of bands in possession of the bander must not be excessive, and (3) schedule submissions must be occurring in a timely fashion. To better achieve these important checks, the Task Force recommends that the Banding Permit be more specific about the designation of species or species groups that the bander is authorized band and expected banding rates; such specific recommendations are presented in Section XIV, "Species Designations on Banding Permits."
  
  There are a lot of examples of banders giving out bands as a souvenir. This is strongly disapproved by the BBL but it happens. This practice may be alleviated by a recent policy change which allows the BBL band manufacturers to produce facsimile bands for sale to the general public. The BBL must communicate better with banders to ensure all unused bands are returned and even better, returned before they are too old to be reissued. Returned bands which are too old to be reissued are smelted (destroyed by melting in a foundry) as stated in the existing policy on band returns.
  
  Now that the BBL is procuring only bands which bear the toll-free inscription, all old bands should be returned as soon as 1-800 bands become available. When there is an adequate stock to supply all banders with new bands, there should be a one time project to recall all old stocks of bands and do a good band inventory clean-up.
4. Reference to Minutes
  The criteria for issuance and return of bands were discussed during Meeting 14.
Charging for Bands and/or Permits
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  No charges for bands or for permits are made under the current system.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that charges for bands or permits should not be made because in an optimum system, all banding should be to the advantage to the government. Banding and recovery data are necessary for governmental agencies to fulfill their resource stewardship obligations.
3. Rationale
  Migratory bird management, which includes a stewardship obligation for the conservation of migratory birds, is part of the Migratory Bird Treaty/Convention. Under the Act, people are not permitted to do anything with birds except for management and conservation purposes. The management of birds is under provincial, state, and Federal agency responsibility.
  
  Internationally, schemes have been developed to charge for bands. However, migratory bird management in North America relies more on partnerships. The existing systems for management and conservation of birds in North America is built upon close partnerships at state, Provincial, and Federal levels. Our system of close cooperation would be unduly burdened by any attempt to charge for bands. Also, any funds that may accrue to the BBL from selling bands would be insignificant compared to the administrative burden required to operate a band-sale program.
  
  If the BBL were to charge for permits and not for bands, the "want-to-be bander's" argument will then be used: "I am a bander; I paid for a permit; I can band any thing I want." This flies in the face of the present justification for banding and the governments's obligations to the resource (see Sections VI and VIII). And again, the Task Force believes that any funds generated from the sale of Banding Permits would be insignificant compared to administrative costs of such a program.
4. Reference to Minutes
  The sale of bands and permits was discussed during Meeting 14.
Species Designations on Banding Permits
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Current species categories on Banding Permits often give banders broader authority than they need or is justified in their application. Consequently, some banders expand their activities beyond the scope of their original need to band. The current broad categories include: Waterfowl; Migratory Webless Game Birds; Blackbirds; All Species Except Waterfowl, Eagles, and Threatened or Endangered Species (and tacitly excluding hummingbirds); Threatened or Endangered Species; Eagles; All Raptors Except Eagles or Endangered Species; and Other Species (to be specified).
  
  When applying for a Banding Permit in Canada, categories of species to be banded have been updated to be more specific: Passerines, Shorebirds, Seabirds, Nestbox Species, Hummingbirds, Raptors, All Species at a MAPS Station (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival) or Migration Monitoring Station, Other (species-to be specified).
2. Recommendations
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL be more specific about the species designation on Banding Permit applications and to have the permits reflect more closely the actual banding projects by restricting the species category to the ones necessary to complete the project.
  
  The Task Force also recommends that the BBL study the species groups as they appear on the Canadian Banding Permit Application and incorporate them on its application form, as well as any other additional groups or categories as necessary, such as a category designation of Rehabilitated Birds.
3. Rationale
  Under the existing permit issuance system, banders have expanded their banding projects and programs without the appropriate authorization form the BBL. To fulfill the BBL's bird stewardship responsibility, a linkage between the project and the permit application is required to make the permit conditions as specific as possible and to ensure all banding activities are officially authorized or sanctioned.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Charging for bands and/or permits was discussed during Meeting 20.
Auxiliary Marking Authorizations
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  A separate authorization is required for auxiliary marking in the United Stated and Canada. In the United States, the authorization is an attachment to the Banding Permit that lists the species, type of marker, color(s), location, and includes comments (if applicable) with specific codes for neck collars or other unique markers, and frequencies, weight restrictions, and attachment type for radios. In Canada, such an authorization with the same information is included on the Banding Permit itself. Current BBL policy is to coordinate the use of auxiliary markers and to not restrict the use of markers, other than to ensure coordination with existing researchers or current international protocols.
2. Recommendation
  Maintain current policy.
3. Rationale
  The current policy is working well. Auxiliary marking is allowed as long as the project is well-grounded and the markers are standard for the species and coordinated with other researchers.
  
  Currently, four criteria are used for reviewing projects with auxiliary marking authorization requests. The project must be capable of providing useful data and results. The project must minimize the impact on birds by using the least damaging marker that provides useful data. The bander must cooperate as a professional and be willing to coordinate the use of markers with other banders. The bander should be willing to cooperate and respond to requests from the BBL and the public for information on auxiliary-marked birds. If the request is for use of an unconventional marking technique, some evidence that the technique is safe or indication that safety will be evaluated is required. If the project follows these guidelines, the bander is instructed to coordinate with the existing banders, following whatever protocol may exist for the species.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Auxiliary marking authorization was discussed during Meeting 18.
Dealing with Illegal Banding
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  People illegally band migratory birds with private bands. Most cases involve the banding of game farm mallards that are hand-reared and released to the wild. Illegal banders include individuals, hunting clubs, and nationally known waterfowl organizations. Private banding is illegal because 50 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Part 10.12 defines "migratory bird" to include "any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not raised in captivity which belongs to a species listed in Part 10.13," and because Part 21.22 (c)(1) states that "The banding of migratory birds shall only be by official numbered leg bands issued by the Service." Other bands and markers may be used if authorized by permit, but the BBL does not authorize them in these cases.
  
  Canada geese are sometimes banded illegally with private bands and some of these cases may involve the illegal take (capture) of wild birds. Nongame birds are not commonly banded illegally with private bands.
  
  Private, illegal banding has occurred for decades. The BBL's longstanding policy was to actively suppress it. When private banders were identified (usually through hunters reporting the private bands to the BBL), the BBL contacted the banders about their program, and followed-up with a letter requesting that the illegal banding cease. In more difficult cases, the BBL enlisted the support of states and other FWS offices. In a few potentially politically-sensitive cases, the BBL had no choice but to legitimize the banding by issuing a Federal permit and bands to the offender. The BBL policy never eliminated private, illegal banding, but did minimize it to low levels.
  
  The enforcement of BBL's policy began to change in the late 1980s, commensurate with changes in mallard release programs. The situation became complicated with the release of large numbers of privately-banded, hand-reared mallards for supplemental hunting on Registered Shooting Areas (RSAs). Because these RSAs did not follow the 50 CFR stipulations above, it became difficult for the BBL to distinguish between these birds and birds privately banded in unsanctioned programs. Furthermore, the FWS showed no inclination to enforce regulations on large organizations like Waterfowl USA, which aggressively uses private bands to promote its program. The BBL was left in an awkward, weakly-supported position, so it began to less aggressively confront illegal banders.
  
  The situation deteriorated following the transfer of the BBL from the FWS to National Biological Service (NBS). Lines of responsibility became unclear leaving illegal banding, and responsibility for policing, NBS problems. These sorts of activities did not fit well in the mission and culture of the NBS, and with no support, the BBL eventually ceased pursuing illegal banders.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that actions be taken to stop all unsanctioned banding and recommends the following proactive procedures when illegal banding is suspected:
  1. The BBL sends a letter of inquiry to discover evidences;
  2. The BBL notifies FWS Law Enforcement of the violation of federal law with a copy to the violator;
  3. The BBL asks the illegal bander to stop banding and informs him/her on how to apply for a Banding Permit with the specific criteria to be met; and
  4. If the permit is denied and the unsanctioned banding continues, FWS Law Enforcement should be asked to follow up with investigation and prosecution.
  In addition, more education is needed: game breeders/farmers should be informed by the BBL of what is legal when they release hand-reared birds. Manufacturers of bands should also be notified of BBL policy which they could include in their catalogs.
3. Rationale
  Private, illegal banding needs to be suppressed for several reasons. It is a growing problem. It is illegal, because a federal permit is required to band migratory birds. Private bands can confuse hunters: they often report them to the BBL expecting a response with banding data. Handling reports of private bands causes extra work for the BBL. And the circulation of private bands has long been feared as potentially affecting band reporting rates and confounding or compromising the analysis of data obtained through the official, science-based banding program.
  
  The BBL is closest to the problem and should have most responsibility for suppressing private, illegal banding, but FWS must provide the enforcement authority when needed.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Illegal banding was discussed during Meeting 14.
Hummingbird Banding
1. The Issue or Current Policy
  Hummingbird banding currently requires a separate authorization for hummingbirds on the Banding Permit. Hummingbirds are tacitly (but not specifically) excluded from Banding Permit Category D, "All Species Other Than Waterfowl, Eagles, and Threatened or Endangered Species." It is unclear to existing banders that hummingbirds are not included in Category D. Banders are required to demonstrate skill in the handling and banding of hummingbirds, and skill in the manufacture of hummingbird bands as well as a research project that requires the use of banding as for all banding projects.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that banders only be allowed to band hummingbirds if hummingbirds are specifically authorized on the Banding Permit.
3. Rationale
  Hummingbird banding requires additional training and dexterity on the part of the bander. Hummingbird bands are provided to the bander in sheets of 100 and must be cut to size, filed, and shaped. All other bands are provided ready for use by the bander. Handling techniques are different for hummingbirds than for all other species of birds. Hummingbirds are susceptible to stress due to their increased heart rate over other birds, and are delicate as a result of their small size. Special equipment is required for band manufacture and for banding. Also, hummingbird band numbers are limited, as only six characters can fit on the band. The BBL will use up all possibilities for hummingbird bands within ten years under the current scheme of one letter followed by five numbers. At that time additional coordination with international schemes will be required to continue the use of a relatively small number of characters on a hummingbird band.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Hummingbird banding was discussed in during Meeting 18.
Waterfowl Banding
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Currently, waterfowl Banding Permits in the United States are issued almost solely to state and Federal agencies and their close cooperators. The conservation agencies have been delegated authority to issue Letters of Authorization, valid for one year, conveying the authority to band waterfowl under the agency's Banding Permit. The BBL does not review or issue Subpermits to these waterfowl banders. For decades this approach has been taken for waterfowl and has worked well. In recent years, however, some conservation agencies have used this authority to expand into the nongame banding arena and have not done an adequate job of training and overseeing their nongame banding activities. Unfortunately, inadequately-trained personnel have been allowed to conduct field work.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL:
  1. Maintain the current policy of limiting waterfowl permits to state and Federal agencies and their close collaborators;
  2. Limit the conservation Letter of Authorization to game birds; and
  3. When appropriate, issue separate Banding Permits for game and nongame species.
3. Rationale
  Management agencies in the United States have requested that the BBL limit the issuance of waterfowl Banding Permits to state and Federal agencies and their close cooperators because of the special need for waterfowl banding data in establishing hunting regulations and management programs. The Task Force believes that the BBL needs to put bounds on the Letters of Authorization to avoid problems related to inadequately-trained nongame banders. The feeling of the Task Force is that nongame banding activities need to be more tightly controlled than is currently done via Letters of Authorization, especially the use of mist nets. The Letter of Authorization should only cover game-bird banding.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Waterfowl banding was discussed during Meeting 14.
Conflict of Interest
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Bird Banding Permits typically give Permittees broad, hands-on access to migratory birds. While the vast majority of Permittees use their permit privileges for legitimate research and management purposes, real and potential conflicts of interest and abuses of privilege occur. The potential is greatest in cases where the Banding Permit completes a suite of permits that give the holder nearly unchecked access and possession of migratory birds. Examples include the raptor enthusiast who holds Banding, Falconry, and Raptor Propagation Permits, or the facility that holds Banding, Salvage, and Taxidermy Permits.
  
  The BBL does not exclude any category of persons or institutions from applying for a Banding Permit. However, the BBL exercises caution in issuing permits where a conflict of interest could be reasonably construed. To aid in the screening process, the BBL asks applicants if they possess other federal migratory bird permits.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL use caution in issuing permits when a potential conflict of interest may occur, and that to the degree necessary, the BBL require additional documentation in such situations to ascertain why applicants holding multiple permits want to band.
3. Rationale
  Conflicts of interest and abuses of Banding Permits occur. For example, banders have been guilty of taking birds for falconry purposes, and of collecting birds and eggs under the guise of their Banding Permits. Banding Permits have been used to cover the capture of birds for commercial photography. The BBL needs to protect the public interest and the resource, and to maintain the integrity of the banding program. Requiring additional documentation will help prevent conflicts of interest and abuses.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Potential conflict of interest related to the issuance of Banding Permits was discussed during Meeting 15.
Student Banding Policy
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  A common case for issuance of a Subpermit is for students. Although the BBL has an efficient system for designating Subpermittees, sometimes students have expectations for a higher-level permit.
2. Recommendation
  The BBL should formulate a written policy on the issuance of Banding Permits to students that explains that qualified students are issued Subpermits under their major professor or advisor, unless they demonstrate overriding need and qualifications for receiving a Master Permit. Additionally, the BBL should limit the time frame of the student Subpermit and restrict activities based upon their project, experience, and banding skills, particularly for the novice bander. Similarly, the BBL needs to reevaluate permits issued to students on a regular basis.
3. Rationale
  Currently students are not clear on what type of Banding Permit they may qualify for nor do they know what to expect as they gain banding experience under their advisor or major professor. The BBL needs student banding guidelines so they can be explained right up front so students will not expect to get Master Permits (assuming the graduate advisor is a bander who can take on a Subpermit), unless, of course, the student is an "advanced" bander. A policy statement by the BBL on the issuance of permits to students will minimize questions to the BBL and establish reasonable expectations of student applicants.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Issuance of Banding Permits to students was discussed during Meeting 15.
Banding Permit Renewals and Reporting
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  At the present time, the BBL recognizes that the permit renewal and reporting components of its permitting system are lax. There is a need for a periodic review of all banders' projects to ensure that all Permittees are working on valid projects, submit their data as requested, and that all permit authorizations are current.
  
  Currently, Banding Permits issued by the BBL are renewed biannually, as is the auxiliary marking authorization, which is an addendum to the banding permit. Typically, Master Permits and Subpermits are renewed automatically one month before their expiration, in most case with no change on the permitted activities. If no recent schedules have been submitted, the Master Permittee is challenged with a letter suggesting inactivation of the permit. The bander is given 45 days, usually extended to 90 days, to respond to the letter suggesting inactivation. Some banders respond with a bona fide reason to keep their permit active and some will agree to inactivation of their permit. Some banders will be inactivated by the BBL because they do not have a real need for their banding permit.
  
  There are two exceptions to the current renewal cycle: the Valid-Until-Revoked Permits that are issued to Federal and state conservation agencies; and the Letters of Authorization, which are issued by Federal and state conservation agencies to competent persons needed for assistance in the organization's banding program. The Letter of Authorization is equivalent to a Subpermit, is not reviewed by the BBL, and has been used historically for waterfowl banding. The problem is that in recent years it has been used also for nongame banding projects for which more bander training is a requirement (see Section XVIII, Waterfowl Banding, for further discussion of this problem).
2. Recommendations
  The Task Force recommends that all permits (new and existing) meet the same standards of renewal and reporting. All Valid-Until-Revoked Permits should be converted to regular permits and subject to a review and renewal cycle.
  
  The task Force recommends that Letters of Authorization continue to be issued by Federal and state conservation agencies but limited to game bird banding only. The Letters of Authorization should be renewed, as is, on an annual basis. Nongame banding programs run by Federal and state conservation agencies should be reviewed and approved by the BBL. The Task Force also recommends that a permit report on permitted activities be requested for all Permittees at the time of their permit renewal.
  
  The Task Force believes answers to the following questions would be useful on the permit report:
  1. Have all your data been submitted and are your Banding Schedules up to date?
  2. What are your current projects and the benefits of each?
  3. How have auxiliary markers contributed to your project?
  4. Does the auxiliary marking portion of the permit need updating?
  5. What could the BBL do to enhance your project (Please note that this is not the place to modify the permit and that any permit modifications need to be submitted in the regular manner. If modifications are desired, please attach the necessary paperwork.)?
  6. Do you need to delete any Subpermittees?
  7. What have you done to improve your skills as a bander?
  8. What have you done to minimize morality associated with banding?
  9. Verify your current address, telephone number, and e-mail address.
3. Rationale
  The present system for banding permit renewal is lax and needs revision. The Valid-Until-Revoked permits are not subject to review and are not tied to specific banding projects. Historically, the Letters of Authorization have been used only for the game bird banding program. Recently, the Letters of Authorization have been occasionally used for nongame banding with inadequately-trained persons conducting field work. In the past, the BBL did have a report on permit activities but this was given up during the early 1980s as part of the effort to reduce citizens paperwork burden to meet government regulations (Office of Management and Budget). A report with focused questions tied to the permit renewal cycle for all Permittees would increase information reporting without unduly burdening banders.
4. Minutes Reference
  Banding Permit Renewals and Reporting were discussed at Meeting 19.
Permit Appeal Procedures
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  The 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 13.29 (e), provides people an opportunity to appeal adverse permit actions (denial, suspension or revocation) to higher authority. The decision of the designated appeal official constitutes the final administrative decision of the Department of the Interior. When the BBL was part of FWS, the designated appeal official was the Deputy Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife. There currently no designated appeal official in the USGS. This has not posed a problem because there have been no formal appeals of BBL permit actions since BBL transfer to USGS (nee National Biological Service). However, USGS should designate an official to decide any future appeals that may arise. In Canada, appeals are decided by the Director General of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the Chief, Biologist, USGS-BRD be the designated official for deciding appeals of adverse BBL permit actions. The Task Force also recommends that the BBL continue its longstanding practice of using tact, judgement and negotiation to informally handle appeals "in house," thus preempting formal appeals to higher authority.
3. Rationale
  The appeal official should have the weight of Bureau headquarters, should have line responsibility for support of the BBL (i.e., not be immune to consequences of decisions made), but should be sufficiently distant in line from the BBL to be considered objective and not closely allied to the BBL. The Chief Biologist, USGS, Biological Resources Division, meets these criteria, and holds a position comparable to the appeal official in Canada. Preemptive measures on the part of the BBL will minimize formal appeals.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Permit appeal procedures were discussed during Meeting 20.
Issuance of Banding Permits for Large-Scale Monitoring Projects
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Large-scale monitoring projects, such as MAPS Station (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survival), the Cornell Next Box Network, and Migration Monitoring, are projects that can be characterized as large, multi-location projects where persons directing the project train and evaluate the banders for their project and collect and conduct extensive data editing. The BBL has policies and procedures for large-scale monitoring projects like the MAPS project. The BBL has established procedures whereby the project personnel select, train, and submit the names of banders to the BBL. The BBL then issues the Subpermits without the regular extensive checking normally done to issue a permit. In Canada, requests for large-scale monitoring project permits are limited in number and therefore are handled as a routine banding request.
2. Recommendation
  The present procedure should continue but the BBL needs to develop Letters of Agreement (Memorandum of Agreement) with each large-scale monitoring project detailing the conditions and understandings of the agreement, ensuring that qualified banders are permitted for the projects. Use of NABC certification should be encouraged.
3. Rationale
  Large-scale monitoring projects need to be coordinated with the BBL in order to maintain proper banding and to minimize the bureaucratic burden on the BBL. The individual banding stations (Master Permit holder) submits names to the BBL and the BBL does not need to review the individual sub-permits before issuing the permits. In reality the BBL is delegating the responsibility of review of Subpermittee qualifications to the specific project. It is in the best interest of both the BBL and the Permittee to have a letter of understanding.
4. Reference to Minutes
  The issuance of banding permits for large-scale monitoring projects was discussed in the p.m. session of Meeting 14.
Permit Suspension and Revocation
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Banders and holders of other migratory bird permits occasionally violate permit conditions or otherwise give issuing offices cause for adverse actions against permits. The 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 13.27 and 13.28, provide criteria and procedures for suspension and/or revocation of migratory bird permits. Criteria for suspension are general: "The privileges of exercising some or all of the permit authority may be suspended at any time if the Permittee is not in compliance with the conditions of the permit, or with any applicable laws or regulations governing the conduct of the permitted activity." Criteria for revocation are more specific: (1) violation of federal or state law or regulation, or violation of permit conditions; (2) failure to correct deficiencies that were cause of a permit suspension; (3) permittee becomes disqualified under Part 13.21 (no longer meets the original criteria for issuing the permit); (4) change in law or regulation that prohibits the permitted activity; (5) the affected wildlife population declines to the point that it may be jeopardized by the permitted activity. Criteria (1), (2), or (3) apply most often in migratory bird cases. The 50 CFR procedures for suspension and/or revocation of permits are lengthy, both in steps and in times, allowing Permittees to file objections and requests for reconsideration.
  
  Most violations of Banding Permit conditions are minor, technical, unintentional, and based in ignorance or oversight. BBL's longstanding unofficial policy has been to use tact, judgement and negotiation with banders to correct these violations. For example, a mild verbal admonishment may be all it takes to get a bander to submit overdue records. Or the BBL may fix (amend) a permit after the fact to authorize something that would have been approved beforehand if the bander had followed procedure.
  
  More serious violations typically involve banders who have good intentions but are chronically unable to submit banding records in a timely manner. In these cases, the BBL increases pressure on the bander, frequently offers assistance, but usually stops short of suspending or revoking the permit, the latter because the biggest violators are often prominent state and federal conservation agencies.
  
  The BBL does suspend or revoke permits in rare, most serious cases where there is harm to birds, a violation of state or federal laws, or intentional, recalcitrant refusal by bander to submit records.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL develop a procedure for revoking permits that is "user friendly", but does have teeth. Standards and a policy with clear bench marks should be established. The triggers for suspension and revocation need to be consistent with 50 CFR, but should cover:
  1. Violation of wildlife law;
  2. Untimely data submission (greater than 1 year);
  3. Poor, incomplete, incorrect, or falsified data;
  4. Failure to follow banding restrictions; and
  5. Banding incompetence.
  The procedures for suspension and revocation should include escalating steps:
  1. A friendly letter stating the violation, asking for verification, notifying the bander of the procedures and that they have teeth, offering help, and referencing 50 CFR.
  2. A stern letter stating the magnitude and seriousness of the situation, proposing suspension, offering help, and, in the case of agency Permittees, copying supervisors stating the problem(s) and their negative impact on migratory bird programs.
  3. Suspension stating the restrictions, referencing 50 CFR, offering help, and advising that revocation is the next step.
  4. Revocation referencing 50 CFR and requesting return of permit and bands.
3. Rationale
  Some banders submit poor or incomplete data that are not useful or that require substantial editing to be made useful. Others do not submit data in a timely manner, or do not submit data at all, even at the repeated request of the BBL. This adversely affects the operation of the BBL, increases costs of the program, and often gives the public a negative perception of the BBL and the banding program. The latter occurs when members of the public report the recovery of bird bands, but the BBL delays sending, or cannot send, them a Certificate of Appreciation with banding details because the bander has not submitted the banding data. In extreme cases, Congressional inquiries have resulted from the BBL's inability to provide the banding data. On the other hand, banders have also been known to falsify data to satisfy work requirements or BBL requests. Some banders through negligence or incompetence use poor banding practices or techniques that result in harm to birds. Some banders deliberately violate state and federal laws.
  
  The best way to assure good banding is to have rigorous standards for qualifying new banders and justifying their banding. Despite the best standards and intentions, though, banders lapse, situations change, and some problems inevitably arise. The BBL needs policies and procedures to address these problems and maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the banding program. The Task Force recommendations are consistent with 50 CFR and will help the BBL address problems with banders.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Permit suspension and revocation was discussed during Meeting 14.
Tax Vouchering
1. The Issue and Current Situation
  Banders have requested that the BBL vouch that the expenses that the bander has incurred during banding are a legitimate charitable contribution to the government. Presently the BBL, when requested, informs the bander of the number of banding and recovery records related to the bander's efforts that have been received by the BBL.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force believes that the BBL should not vouch for banding expenses but should provide the bander with a summary of their banding effort.
3. Rationale
  Banders have requested information from the BBL concerning their banding efforts and the cost involved in order to submit the information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The banders argue that their costs related to their banding effort should be deductible for income tax reporting. The Task Force consulted with a Department of Interior Solicitor who recommended that the issue of deductibility remain between the IRS and the bander. Acknowledgment by the BBL of the bander's effort should be provided. Such information would have to be supplied anyway under a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, therefore to avoid this potential bureaucratic burden, the information should be supplied when requested. The relationship of banding to the tax code then becomes a matter between the bander and the IRS; the BBL does not have to attempt to interpret tax law.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Tax vouchering was introduced during Meeting 10 and finally resolved in Meeting 15.
Special Equipment Authorizations
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  Current policy requires a special amendment on the bander's permit that authorizes the use of special equipment including chemical capture agents and cannon or rocket nets.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL continue to authorize (endorse) their use on the Banding Permit, specify the special equipment (chemical agent or rocket/cannon net), and require evidence of competency before authorization.
3. Rationale
  The legal authority to use chemical capture agents to capture birds is given by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the legal authority to use rocket or cannon net charges to capture birds is given by the USFWS. The authorization to use these special capture techniques does allow the BBL to track the persons that are using them. Researchers that are interested in learning to use one of these capture techniques frequently ask the BBL for contacts. Maintaining the authorizations on the Banding Permit will allow the BBL to refer these researchers to banders actively using the techniques.
  
  The issue of demonstrating competency was discussed, and it was decided that these capture techniques pose some additional risk to birds, so, just as with mist nets, it is within the BBL's purview to require the bander to demonstrate competency prior to authorizing the use of these devices.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Special equipment authorizations were discussed during Meeting 15.
The Salvage Provision of Federal Bird Banding Permits
1. The Issue and Current Policy
  The Federal Bird Marking and Salvage Permit generally authorizes the salvage of dead birds regardless of cause. Some people who are no longer banding want to keep their Banding Permit for salvage purposes only, rather than get a salvage permit from the FWS.
2. Recommendation
  The Task Force recommends that the BBL not allow banders to maintain their Banding Permits just for salvage purposes. The Task Force recommends that the name of the Banding Permit be revised to "Federal Bird Banding Permit," with an authorization to salvage birds for the purpose of donating to a public scientific or educational institution. All dead birds salvaged under authority of a migratory bird Banding Permit must be donated and transferred to a public scientific or educational institution at least every six months or within sixty days of the time such permit expires or is revoked, unless the Permittee has been issued a FWS special permit authorizing possession for a longer period of time [50 CFR 21.22 C (3) and (4)]. The holder of the permit is required to keep accurate records of disposition of salvaged birds for a period of five years and is required to reported to the BBL, if requested.
3. Rationale
  The primary purpose of a Federal Banding Permit is to authorize the banding of birds. The salvage authorization conveyed is incidental. The current permit name "Federal Bird Marking and Salvage Permit" is misleading because salvage is a incidental, not primary, activity. It is inappropriate to use a Bird Banding Permit (Federal Bird Marking and Salvage Permit) in lieu of a FWS Salvage Permit.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Salvage operations were discussed during Meetings 15 and 21.
Animal Care and Welfare Issues Related to Bird Banding
1. The Issues and Current Policy
  While animal welfare and care concerns are inherent in BBL permit policies and procedures (e.g., evidence of training and competency are required before issuance of permits), the BBL does not specifically require Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) approval for any banding projects. Currently, the Bird Banding Office in Canada requires annual ACUC review and approval for all banding projects using nasal saddles, neck collars, patagial tags, radio transmitters, and experimental markers. In addition, capture techniques are presently being considered to be subject to ACUC review .
  
  A major issue is that requiring ACUC review and approval prior to issuing permits and/or renewals would impose considerable burden on both banders and the BBL. Hundreds of banders would be affected, including banders for the FWS and states. The current policy in Canada is that ACUC compliance is mandatory (and specified under the conditions of the permit) but not verified prior to permit issuance, or for permit renewal, for projects using special markers, which require annual ACUC review and approval.
2. Recommendations
  The Task Force recommends that a statement be added on the back of Banding Permit that recommends that the bander seek ACUC review and comply with The Ornithological Council guidelines and the North American Banding Council (NABC) standards on bird handling and care. The Task Force agreed on the following wording:
  
  "The Permit Holder is responsible for conducting all banding activities in compliance with the spirit and intent of the Animal Welfare Act and the high ethical standards of animal use and care reflected in guiding documents from the North American Banding Council and The Ornithological Council."
  
  The Task Force also recommends that a statement be added to the Banding Permit application information packet indicating that the BBL recommends that banders be in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act as it would apply to birds. The task Force proposes the following wording:
  
  "The BBL fully embraces the spirit and intent of the Animal Welfare Act as fully applied to birds in any banding program. Consequently, we encourage all Banding Permit Applicants to design and execute their banding programs in compliance with the high ethical standards of animal use and care reflected in the Animal Welfare Act, the North American Banding Council publication on bird handling, and in The Ornithological Council "Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research." We also encourage the Applicant to have their banding project reviewed by an appropriate Animal Care and Use Committee and to satisfactorily address any animal welfare issues raised prior to doing any banding."
3. Rationale
  The welfare of birds should be a high priority in every banding operation. Under the Animal Welfare Act and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center policies and practices, all projects that involve real or potential impact on any animal require Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) review and approval. Therefore it is good practice for the BBL to recommend ACUC compliance. The responsibility is placed on banders to responsibility comply with the Animal Welfare Act as it would apply to birds to ensure that they are taking all appropriate measures to protect the birds.
4. Reference to Minutes
  Animal care and welfare issues related to bird banding were discussed during Meetings 5, 16, 17, and 19.

Report Submitted

This final report "Recommendations for Improving Bird Banding Permit Policies and Procedures" with three supporting Appendices are respectfully submitted by members of the Permit Policies and Procedures Task Force:

     _________________________________   __________
     Mary Gustafson                        Date
     
     _________________________________   __________
     Lucie M�tras                          Date
     
     _________________________________   __________
     B. H. Powell                          Date
     
     _________________________________   __________
     Graham Smith                          Date
     
     _________________________________   __________
     Florence Soehnlein                    Date
     
     _________________________________   __________
     John Tautin                           Date
      
     _________________________________   __________
     H. Randolph Perry, Jr. (Chair)        Date

Attachments

Appendix I: Minutes for Meetings of the Permit Policies and Procedures Task Force

Appendix II: FWS Manual, Chapter 725 FW 1, "Policies and Responsibilities, Migratory Bird Banding Permits"

Appendix III: "Summary Topic Index by Meeting"

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING

BIRD BANDING PERMIT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

September 24, 1998

Table of Contents