2005 BBS Coordinators’ Workshop Minutes  


Date: April 21, 2005

Location: joint Wilson/JFO meeting, Beltsville, MD


Meeting Organizers:

Keith Pardieck and Dave Ziolkowski

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center


Meeting participants:

            Forty individuals participated including coordinators representing 24 states and 5 provinces as well as representatives from the U.S. and Canadian national BBS offices, Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Partners in Flight, and Bird Conservation Alliance.  See Appendix B for complete list of participants and contact information.



            We thank Richard Banks, Gregory Jones, Regina Lanning, Susan Martell, Jay Shepard, and Marilyn Whitehead for providing logistical support prior to and during the meeting.  Friends of Patuxent, a non-profit organization that supports PWRC research and refuge activities, provided snacks and lunch for meeting participants.


Workshop Objectives:

            The primary objectives of the workshop were to bring state and national BBS coordinators from the United States and Canada together to discuss observer recruitment and retention issues, discuss route stop GPS efforts, assess the need for a bird ID training/certification/testing program, and introduce species detectability.  As in previous meetings, discussions were oriented towards identifying needs and developing practical action plans to improve or augment current BBS practices.


Workshop Structure:

            The workshop was designed to maximize participant involvement and input.  The day long meeting included both a morning and afternoon session each comprised of two presentations followed by focused discussion periods.  Keith and Dave acted as moderators to facilitate discussions.


Action Items: See Appendix B for summary of action items.




Meeting Minutes

Welcome and Introductions:

            Keith Pardieck, Director of the North American Breeding Bird Survey, welcomed participants to the 2005 coordinators’ workshop.  Brief self-introductions were then made by each person.

            The recent addition of a new wildlife biologist, Dave Ziolkowski, to the BBS staff was announced and a brief welcome and introduction extended (see 2005 BBS memorandum). 


Accomplishments since 2000 Meeting:

     Many of these coordinators and representatives participated in a BBS sponsored workshop 5 years ago to identify the survey’s outreach and recruitment issues and to discuss the development of a methodology training program.  The importance of the 2000 workshop in promoting renewed progress was noted and the following accomplishments occurring in the wake of the workshop were acknowledged:

  • BBS Methodology Training cd – developed to supplement the written BBS instructions.  To help ensure participants understand and follow BBS sampling protocol.  Developed in 2002, all new BBS participants as of 2003 season required to complete training or data will not be accepted.  Web version of training also available at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/participate/training/.
  • BBS Outreach and recruitment brochure – released widely in spring 2005.  The BBS office recognizes Terry Rich and Alicia Craig for their assistance in the development and dispersal of this product.
  • BBS fact sheet – One-page summary of BBS program developed in 2002.  Dispersed to state coordinators and available on web.
  • BBS slide show – pending
  • Coordinator Handbook – Developed in 2001 and distributed to state coordinators.  Needs to be revised and made available on web.
  • Better partnerships with conservation community – Ongoing.  Recently have taken steps to forge stronger relationships with Partners In Flight, Bird Conservation Alliance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state conservation agencies via the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.



1)     Expansion of BBS into Mexico -- Interest in expanding the BBS into Mexico continues to remain strong on both sides of the border.  However limited resources hinder positive movement in this direction.  The BBS office will continue to pursue partnerships with CONABIO to establish a Mexican BBS. 

2)     The BBS office anticipates that the BBS program will undergo a second peer review during 2006.  Specific review topics and panel members to be decided.

3)     The BBS office has contracted the development of a new web-based data entry and management Applications.  Applications are scheduled to be completed prior to 2006 season, with limited beta testing taking place during 2005 season.  Updates on progress will be provided.


Call for General Questions, Comments & Addendums to Agenda

1)     Coordinator meetings should be held more often.  Appropriate time frames discussed.  A balance between resources and communication needs to be reached.  Perhaps have meetings every 3 years with smaller regional meetings held in conjunction with PIF meetings annually.

2)     Coordinators noted that late data (post October) submitted to BBS office is never sent to them for review after processing.  Needs to be rectified.

3)     Often route changes requested by observers are handled directly by national office.  State coordinators would like to be more involved in process.  At the very least be sure state coordinators are sent copies of the new route maps as developed.

4)     How are coordinators funded?  Can we take a Survey?  Generally thought to be a good idea. 

5)     We should let observers know that late data are not used in current year’s analysis.  Perhaps put note on web site to that effect.  For example, “Data received after ____ will not be incorporated into trends until the following July.”

6)     Tom Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3 – MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, OH) volunteered to be a regional coordinator.  This is a trial position; if it works well in Region 3 then we may enlist other regional coordinators.  Tom will help facilitate communication between potential observers and coordinators and help with BBS outreach in his region.  He will be contacting the state coordinators later this summer to discuss ways they feel he can help them best.

7)     Coordinators requested that pdf versions of route location maps be made available on web for download and use in publications. 


Session I: Observer Recruitment/Retention Issues

            Over the last 10 years, BBS route coverage has plateaued at about 3000 routes surveyed annually leaving over 1000 routes vacant.  The BBS office has recently been making a concerted effort to engage the conservation and wildlife management communities to take a more active role in promoting the BBS.  Partners in Flight, IAFWA, and the Bird Conservation Alliance have all stepped up to assist with outreach and support of the BBS in their own ways.  Since BBS approached the PIF Implementation Committee over a year ago, Terry and colleagues on the committee have made a concerted effort to emphasize the importance of BBS to NA landbird conservation and promote the BBS to PIF members.  Representatives from each of these organizations were asked to speak to the group and outline ways in which they are able to assist the BBS.


            Terry Rich, USFWS PIF National Coordinator, opened the session with a presentation entitled, “BBS, Partners in Flight (PIF) and North American Landbird Conservation.”  Terry provided an overview of PIF’s role in avian conservation (see AUK 117:541-548 for details) and stressed that the BBS has produced a major “ripple effect” in the conservation community, promoting the formation of several major conservation initiatives including PIF itself.  He expressed serious concern that the BBS has at times failed to get the recognition and resources it deserves and suggested possible ways that PIF could direct outside support towards the program.  Possible areas of support include:

  • Helping with various aspects of observer recruitment such as promoting the BBS to PIF constituents.
  • Promoting the importance of BBS for avian conservation to policy makers and the like to help get more resources attributed to the BBS.


            Debbie Hahn, Migratory Bird Coordinator - International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, gave a brief introduction of her organization and invited coordinators to discuss with her how IAFWA (www.iafwa.org) could help further support for the BBS within their states. 

            The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), founded in 1902, represents the government agencies responsible for North America’s fish and wildlife resources. IAFWA applies expertise in science, policy, economics and coalition-building to serve its members as a national and international voice on a broad array of wildlife and conservation issues. 

            Debbie explained that one potential avenue for getting more support for the BBS at the state level may be through the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.  In order to receive federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants program, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS).  The state wildlife strategies will provide an essential foundation for the future of wildlife conservation and an opportunity for the states, federal agencies, and other conservation partners to strategically think about their individual and coordinated roles in conservation efforts across the nation.  Think BBS.   


            Alicia Craig, Director of the Bird Conservation Alliance, gave a brief overview of her organization and services it provides.  Alicia also discussed the importance of recognizing volunteer psychology in maintaining successful volunteer based efforts.  The Bird Conservation Alliance (www.birdconservationalliance.org) is a network of organizations whose focus is the conservation, study, and observation of birds. Through the Alliance, millions of birdwatchers and concerned citizens are united with conservation professionals, scientists, and educators for the conservation of wild birds.  The Alliance's goals are to prevent further bird extinctions, to reverse declines in bird populations, and to assure the protection and management of sufficient habitat to effectively conserve populations of the full range of native, wild bird species for the future.  The Alliance serves as a forum for organizations to exchange information and ideas regarding current issues in bird conservation, assists its members in conducting collaborative advocacy, and provides resources to assist its members in their bird conservation work. 

-        Alicia graciously assisted in the development of a series of outreach documents/templates for use by BBS coordinators.  They will be distributed via email to all coordinators and made available on the coordinators website.

-        Alicia also provided comments during the development of the BBS brochure.

After briefly discussing several aspects related to the management of a volunteer workforce (finding what attracts volunteers and keeps them motivated, satisfied volunteers are the best recruiters, opportunities are competing for a volunteer’s time, etc.), Alicia condensed the topic to several primary volunteer motivators that she felt important that we mind in discussions:

  • For many volunteers, the desire to contribute to environmental preservation and conservation underlies their commitment.
  • Another major incentive for volunteers is the process of discovering new skills, overcoming personal challenges, and learning more about themselves.
  • Most volunteers value personal recognition and feel abandoned in situations where they perceive organizational support to be missing.
  • Lastly, most volunteers enjoy the opportunity to achieve (even minor accomplishments).  Dissatisfaction increases when organizations put obstacles in the path of achievement through poor planning or improper use of a volunteer’s time.



1)     There are many sources of volunteers that state coordinators are not tapping.  These include local bird clubs, nature centers, etc.  Alicia said that she would be able to provide a state specific list for each state coordinator.  This drew comments about ‘casting too wide a net’ and ‘pulling joes off of the street’ sparking a mini-discussion about whether we were in the business of training birders from the ground up.

2)     Should BBS reimburse observers for their mileage?  It was noted that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reimburses BBS observers $50 per route yet Florida still has 8 vacant routes.  USGS does not currently have funds to reimburse participants (and most likely never will).

3)     Dave and Keith presented the BBS Outreach brochure and discussed the desire to implement a BBS mentoring program.  Basically, we would need BBS observers to act as mentors to folks that have the desire to participate in the BBS but may still lack the skills.  Group thought idea worth pursuing.  Details to be worked out and then participants will be solicited.

4)     National Office intends to write and circulate quarterly outreach article that is regionally or nationally based to help generate and maintain interest in BBS.  Also discussed writing general articles that can serve as templates for state coordinators to use and flavor with locally relevant information about birds or participants.


Session II:  Species Detectability and the BBS
Currently there is a lot of work being done on incorporating methods to account for species detectability within avian sampling methods.  It has been suggested that the BBS adopt some method of detection estimation, but many of the assumptions of current methods are untested and it is unclear whether the cost of adoption is worth any potential benefit at this time.  Ted Simons and colleagues at NCSU have been evaluating several of these methods and their assumptions over the last couple of years using a technology that simulates a known avian population (http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/simons/www/simons.html, then “All Bird Radio” link).  Research such as his will hopefully provide the information needed for the BBS to better evaluate the methods and adopt the most appropriate method, if needed.


Presentation: “Dissecting Species Detectability”, Ted Simons, Assistant Unit Leader, USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, North Carolina State University.  
            A version of Ted’s presentation is available as a Power Point presentation on his web site (http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/simons/www/songs_and_calls_for_2003_field_e.htm).  To summarize, differences in species detectability can play a huge role in the inferences drawn from point count data as illustrated by point count distance data from the Great Smokey Mountains.  In the case of the BBS, detectability should only be an issue if there is a directional bias in the data.  For example, consistently increasing road (and ambient) noise over time decreasing observers’ ability to hear birds that are there and vocalizing.  It could also become more of an issue for the BBS if the data were used to estimate total population size as well as population trends.  (Editor’s comment: Thus far no research has shown BBS data to contain a consistent directional bias.)

            Following his presentation Ted fielded several questions.  Each question posed alternative possibilities to dealing with background noise.  The first inquired about how well remote detection (sensu Cornell’s robot recorders) would compare to BBS observer results.  Ted felt that this is an interesting comparison to consider but offered a cautionary reminder that microphones are not capable of recording as many dimensions as humans are capable of perceiving.  A second question suggested that the effects of background noise could be elucidated by further comparing routes that had not experienced increased traffic/noise with those that had.  Ted described his current efforts in refining just such an analysis and said that he hopes to have the results available soon.  The last question asked whether Ted felt it was worth considering that efforts would be better spent training observers to more precisely detect sounds and distances from a limited number of ‘representative birds’ as opposed to the entire avian community.  The speaker agreed that this notion was very worthy of consideration and offered that, “a mammologist would never try to survey the whole community using only one method”.



Session III (Afternoon). Route Stop Descriptions and GPS Coordinates:


            The BBS office developed a database and web interface in 2001 to allow participants to input, store and retrieve stop coordinates and stop descriptions.  Since that time fewer than 10% of routes have been digitized at the stop level.  These data are important for several reasons:

1)     Accurate and current stop descriptions helps ensure observers sample same locations each year.  This is especially true when a new person takes over a route.

2)     GPS coordinates could also be used to navigate to stops.  Once again insuring replication of sample stops through time.

3)     Geo-referencing stops will allow more detailed spatial analysis of the data, as well as, provide opportunities to group routes, or individual stops, in unique ways for trend analyses.  For example, forested stops could be grouped to provide a forest habitat trend, rather than just a strictly geographic trend.

4)     Also from an operational standpoint, such data would help the BBS office to transition from paper map management system to an electronic map management system.


               Brenda Dale, Canadian Wildlife Service Songbird Biologist for the Prairie region, emphasized the value of obtaining GPS coordinates for route stop locations through a series of slides illustrating a recent habitat level analysis using data from northern prairie routes.  The presentation illustrated how much more mileage we could get out of our analyses by incorporating a spatial/habitat aspect.  Stop coordinate data are needed for the routes to fully integrate spatial data with BBS data.


     Salient points to emerge from further discussion of the documentation of route stops:

  • On the most basic level the GPSing of stops provides a definitive end to the route, an important piece of information unknown for many routes since the actual end is established ‘on the ground’ when the observer records stops from the first run of the route.
  • The incorporation of spatial components into BBS analyses (e.g., landscape/habitat attributes) is severely bottlenecked by the wait for this information.
  • Workshop participants expressed that the acquisition of stop information is therefore a high priority.
  • Observer collection of GPS data has proceeded at a relatively slow rate with less than 10% of routes completed to date.
  • Potential solutions include a) improved contact with observers better explaining the importance of stop information and encouraging them to collect it, b) third party (volunteers other than the assigned observer) efforts to collect this information
  • GPSing of stops by third parties is confounded by the lack of up to date stop descriptions for most routes.
  • Stop descriptions can be entered and easily maintained online.
  • The national office goal is to have volunteer entered route stop descriptions available online for all routes within the next 2 to 3 years and at least half with accompanying GPS coordinates.
  • PA (Dan Brauning), CO (Hugh Kingery), ID (Rex Sallabanks), and MI (Ray Adams) volunteered as lead-in states to begin working with their observers to expedite the effort
  • The national office will provide to each state the list of routes for which volunteers have entered route stop descriptions online
  • The national office prefers to receive geographic data in NAD 83, though other formats are acceptable for conversion.
  • NH (Becky Soumala) requested copies of all stop descriptions on file for her state.  She would see that they are input into database.


Postscript 6/30/2005: To assist states in the coordinate collection effort the national office applied for and was awarded a grant to purchase 12 GPS units.  The BBS office now has 15 units available for loan. 



Session IV. BBS Bird ID Training, Assessment, and Certification

The BBS developed web and CD versions of a BBS Methodology Training & Certification program that all new participants are required to complete before they may participate in the BBS.  This discussion is to center on deciding upon whether there is a need for a similar product that focuses on bird identification and what form it should take.  Charles Francis and Linda Weir presented two training models that are currently being used to stimulate discussion.


Nuthatch Software

Charles Francis (Chief of Migratory Bird Populations Division, Canadian Wildlife Service) provided a brief overview.  Nuthatch Software is a CD-based avian ID training software that was originally developed for use by Ontario atlas participants.  Nuthatch provides photos and several song samples (3-5) for each species.  It allows groupings by habitat and region and has a self-quiz function.  CWS hopes to develop and provide similar training software to participants in all provinces and territories over the next several years.  This is a self-training, self-assessment tool.


Bird ID Training Model: The North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) Example

Linda Weir (NAAMP Director, USGS).  NAAMP developed a web-based frog quiz for observer training and assessment purposes (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/frogquiz/).  Linda discussed the reasoning behind the development of the frog quiz, the purpose of the quiz, how it functions and gave a brief demonstration.  This is a web-based tool that has a public practice/training component that anyone may access to do self-training/self/assessment, and it has a formal testing/assessment component that all participants in NAAMP must complete each year. 



     With relatively little time remaining for discussion of these topics, National coordinators encouraged participants to limit conversation to the broader context of BBS need and overall suitability.  To frame the discussion, representatives of the national office began by defining each of the three topics.  Training was described as a program which improves the bird recognition skills of the observer by focusing their learning on the species most likely to be encountered on their route.  Assessment is a process that estimates the relative skills and abilities of an observer and tracks their changes through time (e.g., improvement in ID skills, decrease in hearing ability, etc.).  Finally, certification was defined as a one time step that acknowledges that the observer meets an established level of minimum skills and abilities necessary to perform BBS survey.

     There are three main reasons why the national office is pursuing these topics more aggressively at this time.  1) Observer recruitment appears to have hit a plateau at 2200 observers sampling about 3000 routes.  One possibility is that, on average across states, we may have reached the maximum number of BBS level skilled observers currently available in the birding community.  2) Recent criticisms of BBS results have focused on the paucity of measures oriented towards observer ability and bias.  In an effort to address these concerns and maintain the integrity of the BBS database the national office is considering the feasibility of designing and implementing a process through which to measure observer ability.  3) As the BBS is utilized in more conservation planning and management arenas, it is becoming more important to have objective measures of observer skill to help validate survey results in the face of potential litigation.

     The primary emphasis of the discussion was to explore each of the topics at the most generalized level by working through the pros and cons of implementing measures to address each issue.


*       Training –


+      Provides a vehicle through which to directly generate new BBS observers.

+      Increases the identification skills of existing observers.

+      The training would likely be web based and so standardized, accessible anytime, and not requiring the manpower and coordination implicit in mentoring and pier education

+      As in the NAAMP example, this may be the best way to transition observers to an assessment or certification program since similarly formatted programs reduce test taking anxiety.


­      Would have to be comprehensive, including the songs/calls of regional forms and local dialects, requiring a considerable investment of time and money - resources that may be better suited elsewhere in the BBS mission.

­      We don’t know whether this training will have the impact that we hope it will.  Judging distance and number of individuals may be the more fruitful type of training.

­      Is it the mission of the BBS to bring “average Joes off the street” and train them from the ground up?  Would the originators of the survey feel this is within the scope of the project?


*       Assessment – Documentation (good and bad)


­      Not covered at the meeting; assessment would provide a measure of change in observer ability over time which could potentially be used as co-variables in the analysis to explain some aspects of bias.


­      Not a one shot measure, requires some degree of periodic measurement


*       Certification –


+      Establishes an objective front-end process to ensure volunteers have the minimum ID skills necessary to run routes

+      Establishes a minimum standard that more thoroughly validates the scientific integrity of the BBS from a legal standpoint

+      A one time only requirement

+      Test could be mandatory for new observers and voluntary for current observers (thereby avoiding the potential of upsetting current observers with a test)

+      It will be forced on us anyway in the coming years so we might as well do it now and develop it the way we would like it to be



­      Introduces test anxiety

­      May scare off new observers

­      Field conditions offer more clues to field identification than does computer based testing (e.g., relative song volume, cadence, habitat, etc.).

­      Removes authority from the state coordinator in appointing observers that they feel have the skills necessary to run the route

­      An accompanying training program may be necessary


Conclusion:  It was generally agreed that the development of a bird ID training tool should be pursued.  No consensus was reached on whether it should include an assessment or certification component.  But it was recognized that USGS would require some sort of certification/assessment process in the future and that any training tool that is developed in the near future should incorporate such a feature to avoid re-inventing the wheel.  Future discussions should focus on certification versus assessment.




Appendix A. Action Items

Miscellaneous :

1) Revamp Coordinators’ Handbook and place on web (This will not take place until new data management system in place tentatively scheduled for June 2006.)

2) Schedule next Coordinators’ meeting and reevaluate time frame of meetings.

3) Coordinators noted that late data (post October) submitted to BBS office is never sent to them for review after processing.  Needs to be rectified.

4) Send coordinators copies of all new route maps as developed in their state/prov/ter.

5) Conduct funding survey of state coordinators. 

6) National office to let observers know that late data are not used in current year’s analysis.  Place note on web site to the effect that, “Data received after (DATE) will not be incorporated into trends until the following July.”


I. Observer Recruitment and Retention

1)     Complete development of BBS Power Point slide show and distribute to coordinators.

2)     National office to continue building partnerships with conservation community.

3)     Partners in Flight will continue to promote BBS to its constituents.

4)     Bird Conservation Alliance developed several document templates to assist coordinators with outreach.  National office to distribute with meeting minutes.  BCA also offered to provide each state coordinator with list of potential volunteer sources in each state that can be tapped.  Lists available from Alicia Craig upon request.

5)     Tom Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3 – MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, OH) volunteered to be a regional coordinator.  Tom will help facilitate communication between potential observers and coordinators and help with BBS outreach in his region.  He will be contacting the state coordinators later this summer to discuss ways they feel he can help them best.

6)     National office to make pdf versions of route location maps available on web for download and use in publications. 

7)     National office to develop and finalize mentoring program with input from coordinators.

8)     National office to write and distribute (email) quarterly outreach article.


II. Species Detectability and the BBS

1)     BBS will continue to follow developments in this area and adopt methods as deemed appropriate and necessary in the future.


III. Route Stop Descriptions and GPS Coordinates

1)     Coordinators agreed to take a more active role in acquiring stop coordinate and description data.  Goal is to collect these data for all active routes by 2008. 

2)     National office to acquire GPS units to assist with effort and will continue to highlight in newsletters.  National office currently has 15 units for loan.

3)     PA (Dan Brauning), CO (Hugh Kingery), ID (Rex Sallabanks), and MI (Ray Adams) volunteered as lead-in states to begin working with their observers to expedite the effort.

4)     NH (Becky Soumala) requested copies of all stop descriptions on file for her state.  She would see that they are input into database.

5)     The national office will provide to each state the list of routes for which volunteers have entered route stop descriptions online. 


Session IV. BBS Bird ID Training, Assessment, and Certification

1)     The National BBS offices to develop an an avian ID training program.

2)     Further discussions to take place on whether program to include certification or assessment components.
Appendix B.  2005 Coordinators’ Workshop Attendance List


Adams, Raymond

Kalamazoo Nature Center, PO Box 127
Kalamazoo, MI  49004




Brauning, Dan

Pennsylvania Game Commission, 61 Windy Lane

Montgomery, PA  17752



Busby, Daniel

Canadian Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 6227, 17 Waterfowl Lane, Sackville, NB  E4L 1G6



Busby, William

Kansas Biological Survey, 2101 Constant Ave., Lawrence, KS  55047-3759




Cannings, Dick

Bird Studies Canada, S11, C96, RR1
Naramata, BC  V0H 1N0



Craig, Alicia

Bird Conservation Alliance, American Bird Conservancy, PO Box 90290, Indianapolis, IN 46240




Corman, Troy

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame Branch, 2221 West Greenway Road
Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399



Dale, Brenda

Canadian Wildlife Service, 200 - 4999 98th Ave, Edmonton, AB  T6B 2X3



DeFalco, Sharon

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, 143 VanSykels's Rd, Hampton, NJ 08827



De Smet, Ken

Manitoba Conservation, P.O. Box 24, 200 Saulteaux Crescent, Winnipeg, MB  R3J 3W3



Downes, Connie

Canadian Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Centre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0H3



Falardeau, Gilles

Environment Canada, 1141 route de l'Église, 9th floor, Sainte-Foy, QC  G1V 4H5



Forbes, Andrew

Audubon Missouri, 2620 Forum Blvd., Suite C-1, Columbia, MO 65203



Fox, Thomas

HC 89 Box 420, Millstone, WV  25261



Francis, Charles

Canadian Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Centre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0H3



Hahn, Debbie

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725 Washington, DC 20001



Harding, Sergio

Virginia Dept. Game & Inland Fisheries, 4010 West Broad St, Richmond, VA 23230



Hull, Scott

Olentangy Wildlife Research Station, 8589 Horseshoe Rd., Ashley, OH  43003




Kingery, Hugh

P.O. Box 584, Franktown, CO  80116-0584



Kleen, Vernon

1825 Clearview Drive, Springfield, IL  62704-6428




Martin, Ron

16900 125th Street, SE, Sawyer, ND  58781



Matsuoka, Steve

USFWS, Migratory Bird Mgmt, 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS 201, Anchorage, AK  99503




McBride, Bev

Canadian Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Centre, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0H3



Miller, Edward

1920 Harris, Richland, WA 99352



Ortego, Brent

202 Camino Dr., Victoria, TX 77905



Palmer-Ball, Jr., Brainard

KSNPC, 801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, KY  40601




Pardieck, Keith

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Md 20708-4038



Rich, Terry

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 137 S Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709



Sallabanks, Rex

Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, P. O. Box 25, Boise, ID  83707




Schneider, Todd

DNR, Wildlife Resources Division, 116 Rum Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA  31029





Simons, Ted

North Carolina State Univ., Cooperative Research Unit, Dept. of Zoology, Box 7617, Raleigh, NC 27695





Smith, Al

Canadian Wildlife Service, 115 Perimeter Road, Saskatoon, SK  S7N 0X4



Smith, Charles

449 Irish Settlement Road, Freeville, NY  13068



Suomala, Rebecca

P. O. Box 625, Epsom, NH  03234



Tomlinson, Cris

4747 Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, NV  89108



Wagner, Steve

313 E. 54th Street, Savannah, Ga     31405



Walker, Judy

Maine Audubon Society, 20 Gilsland Farm Road, Falmouth, ME  04104




Weir, Linda

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Md 20708-4038



Will, Tom

USFWS, One Federal Drive, Federal Bldg.,

Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056



Ziolkowski, Dave

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Md 20708-4038