The U.S. Geological Survey Bird Banding Laboratory: an integrated scientific program supporting research and conservation of North American birds

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) was established in 1920 after ratification of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the United Kingdom in 1918. During World War II, the BBL was moved from Washington, D.C., to what is now the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC). The BBL issues permits and bands to permittees to band birds, records bird band recoveries or encounters primarily through telephone and Internet reporting, and manages more than 72 million banding records and more than 4.5 million records of encounters using state-of-the-art technologies. Moreover, the BBL also issues bands and manages banding and encounter data for the Canadian Bird Banding Office (BBO). Each year approximately 1 million bands are shipped from the BBL to banders in the United States and Canada, and nearly 100,000 encounter reports are entered into the BBL systems. Banding data are essential for regulatory programs, especially migratory waterfowl harvest regulations. The USGS BBL works closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop regulations for the capture, handling, banding, and marking of birds. These regulations are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In 2006, the BBL and the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM) began a comprehensive revision of the banding regulations. The bird banding community has three major constituencies: Federal and State agency personnel involved in the management and conservation of bird populations that include the Flyway Councils, ornithological research scientists, and avocational banders. With increased demand for banding activities and relatively constant funding, a Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) was chartered and reviewed the BBL program in 2005. The final report of the Committee included six major goals and 58 specific recommendations, 47 of which have been addressed by the BBL. Specifically, the Committee recommended the BBL continue to support science, conservation, and management of birds through the use of banding and banding data and that the BBL be managed by the USGS and located at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, Maryland. Recommendations that have not been implemented include those already addressed by other organizations, as well as lower priority, such as developing a BBL business plan. The comprehensive review and recommendations of the Committee, the response of the BBL to address the Committee's recommendations, and other improvements to its operations have positioned the BBL to provide a high level of service to the banding community. As new technologies are developed and incorporated into BBL operations, further efficiencies are expected to enable the BBL to continue to meet emerging scientific needs.

Long‐Term Survival and Harvest of Resident Canada Geese in Virginia

“…We analyzed mark‐recovery data of resident geese from the USGS BBL (Smith 2013) in Virginia, which included records for 45,035 unique individuals spanning 1990–2016 (Table 1). These mark‐recovery data consisting of resident geese included those banded and encountered within ≥1 of 3 hunt zones (Fig.…”

“…We compiled mark‐recapture data from the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL; Smith 2013), which included 45,035 records spanning 1990–2016. All state and federally approved methods (Fair et al 2010) for animal care and use was followed for all data collection and reporting of banding and recapture data.…”

Using ring‐recovery and within‐season recapture data to estimate fecundity and population growth

“…During routine duck banding operations in Alberta, Canada, approximately 54% of 33,552 ducks captured for banding over a three‐year period were within‐season recaptures (Dieter, Murano, & Galster, ), but banding crews have not been encouraged to collect and report these data. North American banders were historically dissuaded from reporting same‐station live encounters, and hence, live encounter data are limiting for historical analyses, although this shortcoming has been recently corrected (Smith, ) and many North American banders have begun submitting large amounts of recapture data (D. Bystrak, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, pers. comm.).…”

“…for example, if juveniles spend more time "refueling" at migrational stopover sites they would be more vulnerable to capture (Rguibi- encouraged to collect and report these data. North American banders were historically dissuaded from reporting same-station live encounters, and hence, live encounter data are limiting for historical analyses, although this shortcoming has been recently corrected (Smith, 2013) and many North American banders have begun submitting large amounts of recapture data (D. Bystrak, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, pers. comm.).…”

Full life-cycle models from ring-recovery data: estimating fecundity from age ratios at capture

“…During routine duck banding operations in Alberta, Canada, approximately 54% of 33,552 ducks captured for banding over a 3-year period were same-season recaptures (Dieter, Murano & Galster 2009), but banding crews have not been encouraged to collect and report these data. North American banders were historically dissuaded from reporting same-station live encounters, and hence live encounter data are limiting for historical analyses, although this shortcoming has been recently corrected (Smith 2013) and many North American banders have begun submitting large amounts of recapture data (D. Bystrak, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, pers. comm.).…”