The UCSB Queensland Bowerbird Affair

UCSB psychologists funded by the US and California taxpayers shoot breeding, male Australian bowerbirds in a dubious "scientific" project.

Source documents are posted below in response to specific requests for information and to help curtail the clutter of uninformed messages posted on inappropriate e-mail lists. (Birding-Aus is the list to read for further information and on which to post if you have anything to add.)

I strongly support the collection of voucher specimens by biologists, for the reasons set forth concisely by Tom Schulenberg. Collection of bird specimens is essential in the study of taxonomic relationships and bird biology and in the battle for bird conservation. Indeed, with at least 1,000 species well along the road to extinction -- in no case due to scientific collecting -- future generations will know them only from specimens, DNA sequences (from specimens), photographs, and tape recordings.

Unfortunately, there is often a knee-jerk reaction among many in the burgeoning Ph.D. community against any criticism of "scientific" collecting, no matter how frivolous the motivations. Such a reaction is undoubtedly understandable, considering the impossibility of engaging in rational communication with members of the "animal rights" movement (who are frequently confused by the press with environmentalists). But there have been outrageous instances of overcollecting, such as the shooting of the entire population of endangered Three-toed Jacamars Jacamaralcyon tridactyla at the Caratinga Reserve, Fazenda Montes Claros, MG, Brazil, by a Brazilian ornithologist who wanted the skins for his natural history museum.

The collection of a few bowerbirds in Queensland clearly has had an insignificant environmental impact, resulting in considerably less damage than is done every day in thousands of spots around the world, from the last, declining fragments of lowland rainforest near Bislig, Mindanao, to the Suaq peat swamp, Sumatra, to Abra Málaga, Peru, to the whole island of Madagascar, etc. -- just read a few pages of TBW. However, the lack of significant environmental damage is irrelevant, because the bowerbirds would not have been killed if there had been full and timely public disclosure of what the UCSB psychologists intended to do.

To collect birds in Australia, as in most countries today, it is necessary to obtain a permit. The UCSB psychologists obviously realized that had they announced publicly that they planned to collect mature and long-established, tame, easily approachable and popular bowerbirds and that their application for a permit connected the bird collection to curing Alzheimer's Disease and the effects of menopause, they would have been ripped apart in the press, and the permit would have been denied.

Consequently, they proceeded in secret, and according to a report on the Birding-Aus list, their cover was blown only when local people inadvertently overheard a conversation. Subsequently the Australian press reported what had happened, and examination of relevant records revealed false statements on applications, gross exaggeration of potential benefits, ornithological incompetence, and an apparent cover-up. There is public outrage, and the matter has been cited in support of banning the scientific collection of birds on ornithological e-mail lists.

The lesson for ornithologists is obvious: if you collect birds for scientific purposes, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. While the animal rights movement will never understand, if you set forth reasonable justifications (not curing Alzheimer's Disease or filling your museum trays with multiple skins of endangered birds) and the collection will not threaten local populations, reasonable people are likely to agree.

Background

"Among the birds to be shot are seven male golden bowerbirds, one of Australia's most beautiful birds. The species is restricted to a limited area of mountain rainforest in north Queensland.

"The researcher, Lainy [Elaine] Day, can 'collect' the bowerbirds under a permit issued in controversial circumstances by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

"Dr Day can also collect 10 great bowerbirds, seven tooth-billed bowerbirds, seven satin bowerbirds, seven regent bowerbirds and seven spotted bowerbirds. All will be males in breeding plumage."

Bowerbird "death study" raises row. By Greg Roberts. The Age, 19 December 2000.

Following is only example I could find online of presumably many government grants obtained by the UCSB team, who split their time between Santa Barbara and James Cook University, Townsville, QLD:

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

"Perceptual and Neural Aspects of Visual Displays" $32,256

1F32MH12326-01, University of California, Santa Barbara

Using great bowerbirds, "the work proposed will investigate whether perception of colored objects by male great bowerbirds is categorical or continuous."

www.psychlaws.org/nimhreport/MissionsImpossible.htm

John Endler [UCSB Professor in charge] page on the James Cook University website:

(2) Signal design, ambient light, signalling behaviour, and cognitive abilities of bowerbirds. Do bowerbirds construct bowers using ornaments which exaggerate their own plumage, maximize visual contrast on the bower, minimize visual contrast at other times, or all three? We are investigating this and related questions about the evolution of visual signals by quantification of bowers and visual contrast of undisturbed bowers in 5 species of Australian bowerbirds, and by carefully controlled ornament choice experiments. Questions of cognition and categorical perception of colour and texture are being done in collaboration with Dr. Lainy Day. [No mention of bowerbird killing.]

From the James Cook University website:

Bachelor pads for the birds

Bowerbird

October 10, 2000

THE challenge of unravelling the allure of the ultimate avian bachelor pad - the bowerbird's bower - has led two researchers to Townsville and to James Cook University.

JCU Biological Sciences Adjunct Professor John Endler and postdoctoral researcher Dr Lainy Day have spent the past several years studying great bowerbird species at locations in and around Townsville.

Their aim is to discover why male bowerbirds select particular objects when building their bowers and what mental processes enable them to make the correct decision about selecting these objects.

Bowerbirds' penchant for collecting objects bright and shiny, including valuables like watches and rings, is well known. But they don't do it for fun. Their motivation is compelling. And their preferences are very specific.

The shiny trinkets placed in and near the bower, elaborately constructed from twigs, are just part of a very complex attempt to impress potential partners. For, in the bowerbird world, the bower is the measure of the man.

"Bowerbirds have one of the very few communication systems where the message is constructed rather than emitted,'' Dr Day explained. "The male bowerbird uses his bower and the ornaments to communicate his quality.

"Females choose males and mate at the bower, but build their nests elsewhere, raising their young on their own. The birds breed between June and December, abandoning their bowers for the rest of the year."

But why do male bowerbirds choose their particular objects and how are they able to shape their habitat in this way?

It seems that bowerbirds know what they like. Really know what they like.

Dr Day said the male bowerbirds studied had shown a distinct liking for the colours green, white, grey and red, and placed objects of different colour in different locations.

"They like to use green glass, snail shells, bits of red wire, aluminium foil. They put the greys and whites and greens to the ends of the bowers and the reds to one side of the bower and the perimeter of the shrub the bower has been built under.

"If you paint an object half-grey and half-red, they put it halfway between where they typically put grey (objects) and red (objects).''

Professor Endler has found that great bowerbirds decorate their bowers in this manner in order to make their grey and black plumage stand out against the background of the bower and its ornaments.

Dr Day has demonstrated that great bowerbirds are able to make very fine distinctions between a preferred green colour which they place on the bower and a very similar colour which they toss far from the bower. This ability may seem unusual, but it is exactly how humans determine where to draw the line between, for example, a color they call yellow and one they call green.

"The bands of the rainbow that humans perceive are artifacts of the way we interpret what is really a smooth transition from short wavelengths of light to long wavelengths of light."

This way of perceiving colour -- known as categorical perception - appears to be shared by the bowerbird although his rainbow might look slightly different to ours.

The importance of this type of perception is that there are very definite boundaries between likes and dislikes and this type of strong regulation of preferences can have dramatic effects on the divergence of preferred signals between species and birds of the same species in different areas.

Dr Day said changes in preference could initially be arbitrary. "There are shifts of preference that occur naturally as part of a dynamic system. Changes can occur by mistake, or because of a change in habitat or a difference in availability of objects. If there are no definite boundaries between likes and dislikes, these arbitrary changes are not likely to stick.

"With categorical perception, you have very definite likes and dislikes, once an individual or group of individuals has a different preference, it's more likely to result in a permanent and profound change.'' Amplification of these slight preference changes over time could explain the different colour preferences of different species of bowerbirds.

Dr Day said results indicated that it was categorical perception rather than just the availability of objects which explained phenomena like why bowerbirds near North Ward and Rowes Bay have shorter bowers and liked the colour green more than birds at Lavarack Barracks.

A further experiment would be carried out, comparing bowers in the Townsville city area with bowers on bush properties. Birds in bush areas use less red on their bowers than birds in the city. Is this because there were fewer red objects available in the bush, or because of specific preferences?

Dr Day said the co-operation of property owners was being sought to provide access to bush land with dense populations of bowerbirds.

For more information ring Dr Day on 07-4781-4292 or JCU media liaison officer Jill Shields on 07-4781-4586 or 0417-602-359. [Note that the call for cooperation of property owners failed to disclose that bowerbirds on their properties would be killed.]

Message posted to the Birding-Aus e-mail list on 23 December 2000:

We have been asked by Cliff Frith to post this letter to BirdingAus. Please respect Fact 13. Also please do not reply to us as we are only the messengers! Keith & Lindsay Fisher.

The collecting of bowerbirds by Dr Lainy Day of the U.S.A

OPEN LETTER STATEMENT
by Clifford and Dawn Frith

We had wished not to comment upon this vexed issue but now find that we have been given no option but to do so because we have found our name has been directly attached to it by Dr Day. In addition we have had at least thirty difficult telephone calls to contend with over the past week from ornithologists, tourist operators, members of the media, the public, and even staff of the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency outraged by the actions of their superiors. Calls have included some from N.S.W. and the A.C.T. and there have also been emails.

We would NOT be posting this open letter but for our having yesterday (23 Dec) seen a copy of Dr Lainy Day and associates' application process - as provided to Mr Jon Nott by Mr Kerry Walsh, Senior Ranger of the EPA, Cairns. In this document it is stated that Dr Day provided additional referees to her application "including Dawn Frith."

Fact 1. Dr Dawn Frith had NO knowledge of her name being attached in any way to this formal application to kill bowerbirds. She was not informed of this by Dr Day or by anyone else. We both deeply resent and object to the implication, by association, that Dawn and/or Cliff Frith supported the application as amended and finally submitted. We can add here that Jo Wieneke's name was also given as an additional referee without her knowledge or approval (J. Wieneke personal communication 22.12.2000).

Fact 2. Dr Lainy Day is a pleasant person and a respected scientist with sincere academic interests in her field and career. She has every right to apply to the appropriate authorities to take fauna, as we all do. Given that a permit is issued she has every right to collect the listed fauna in the manner and locations dictated by the permit.

Fact 3. Scientifically responsible and reasonable collecting of birds is a perfectly legitimate and important aspect of ornithology and the broader sciences (see Mearns and Mearns 1998) that must of course be carefully controlled by the appropriate authorities on behalf of the community.

Fact 4. Clifford Frith received a call from a North Queensland official several months ago to ask his views on an unnamed persons application to collect 42 adult male bowerbirds during November-December of 2000. His responses were that if the permit be issued then:

(a) he suspected public perception of this level of collecting of the bowerbirds concerned would be much as if an application be made to kill seven Superb Lyrebirds [also not listed in Garnett and Crowley 2000 as in need of conservation status];

(b) that the numbers were excessive given that they were all to be adult males;

(d) that the collecting should NOT be performed during the breeding season;

(e) that if collected every part of all birds, in addition the their brains and skins, be properly preserved and presented to appropriate Australian institutions; and

(f) that under no circumstances should birds be trapped or killed near any other bird research areas, past or present.

Fact 5. Because we have studied bowerbirds intensively over the past 23 years (during the course of which and after much soul searching [over two years] we collected two bowerbirds because of their considerable scientific significance) numerous people were contacting us assuming we must have known of and approved of the collecting of this number of adult male bowerbirds. We did not know of, and we do not approve of, the permit as applied for and AS ISSUED.

Fact 6. The officer that called expressed his personal view that the application should be rejected but that he was now obliged to pass it his superiors who would doubtless get back to us having been informed, by Cliff, of our views as individuals with some knowledge of bowerbirds (see references).

Fact 7. At no time were we formally contacted by Dr Day or her colleagues about the final numbers, species, sexes, and ages of bowerbirds being considered for 'sacrifice' or as to where, when, and how they might be taken, killed, and preserved.

Opinion 1. It is most appropriate that members of Birds Australia, other ornithological/zoological associations, and members of the public express their views on the issue of the permit applied for and issued. It is unacceptable, however, that they personally attack or abuse Dr. Day and her colleagues.

Fact 8. The formal application made by Dr. Day was originally dated 10th April 2000 and was only to trap and take blood samples from up to 20 Great Bowerbirds. This was followed by a series of amendments - submitted on the following dates: 29th May, 23rd June, 11 September and 15th November, starting with a request to kill seven Great Bowerbirds and ending with the request to kill 42 adult male bowerbirds during their breeding season.

Opinion 2. It does seem to us that the unusual history of the repeatedly amended application(s) could be interpreted as indicative of a hastily conceived and implemented research programme. This may have been as a result of another scientist's novel finding concerning relative brain sizes across the bowerbird species (involving the killing of none but the use of existing museum material). This is pure conjecture on our part.

Opinion 3. It is perfectly clear from the application to kill these birds that this is primarily, if not exclusively, for a study of visual perception in bowerbirds. We think it is regrettable that the application was supported by the implication of its possible significance of the study to human Alzheimer's disease. [JWW note: Could the motivation for such a patently absurd assertion by the applicants have been to justify grants from the National Institute for Mental Health, for which they have been criticized by other scientists competing for NIMH grant money?] As a result of this, the media have mentioned this vague potential benefit to those of you that cannot now remember what this letter is about and have mostly failed to give the primary reason for this substantial collection of bowerbirds. The killing of these birds is surely for a study of their brains with respect to their visual perceptions and associated behaviour and is not primarily about the saving of humanity from memory loss etc.

Fact 9. In support of their case the applicants stated that the killing of these birds would 'provide helpful information to aid currently unsuccessful attempts to breed bowerbirds in captivity.'

Opinion 4. We can only interpret Fact 9 as indicative of the applicants' ignorance of the history of bowerbirds in captivity. The vast majority of bowerbird species are easy to breed in captivity. Satin Bowerbirds were first bred in the UK in 1902, the Regent in the UK in 1905 and they and at least five other species have been bred a number of times since. The limited instances of breeding them in Australia today has nothing whatever to do with difficulties involved in doing so but everything to do with the fact that permits to keep LIVE birds cannot be easily obtained.

Opinion 5. We personally find the justification for killing seven adult males of each species as being 'the minimal number of animals necessary for statistical power' unacceptable in the case of the upland restricted Wet Tropics endemic bowerbird species.

Fact 10. It would appear that a highly important and most pertinent point may have been overlooked in the granting of this permit. Their extremely restricted geographical range aside, the polygynous species of bowerbirds involved are very different from normal Australian passerine birds. Males of these species do not attain their adult plumage until six to seven years old. After this they must find themselves a place in adult male bower attending society. Once established within this, males have the potential to live amazingly long lives for passerine birds. As Dr Day specifically sought to collect adult males with better bowers it is very possible that some of the individuals killed were in excess of twenty years old. As such these older adult males, with better bower structures, may well be Alpha males, which is to say that they are the few individual males within local populations that the majority of females seek out to have fertilise them. Thus the taking of such individuals has the real potential to be of FAR greater detrimental effect upon the reproduction of the species than would be the case in more normal birds (see Frith and Frith 1995, 2000a,b).

Opinion 6. It seems to us that it would have been far better and appropriate had a compromise permit been issued for an initial study of (a) far commoner colour perceptive bird species (if this need be done in Australia at all) or (b) two individuals of each of only two bowerbird species (with two extremes of bower types) in the first instance in order to see if interesting results might justify application to collect more birds.

Fact 11. The main focus for the killing of these birds is said to be to compare the brains of non-bower species with several bower-building species and across the diversity of bower types.

Opinion 7. Given the last fact we cannot see the justification, in the context of this first application for such a study, for collecting any catbirds because the Tooth-billed Bowerbird provides an adequate non-structure building sample (n = 7) and species. Moreover, and more obviously, we feel a permit should NOT have been issued, in the context of the study, to collect seven Spotted and Satin Bowerbirds because a single 'avenue' bower-building species would suffice (particularly as 14 Great Bowerbirds were to be killed).

Fact 12. The applicants state that transport of birds would be 15 or less minutes from the point of capture to where they were to be killed (i.e. laboratory facilities). This would appear to be impossible in the case of the Golden and Toothbill Bowerbird locations intended to be and actually used. It is also stated that bower attendance by individual males would be monitored prior to and after the killing of the adult male owner. People at Paluma apparently have gained the impression, however, that no monitoring preceded an attempt to collect the birds there. Are bowers from which birds were in fact collected presently having their attendance monitored in Dr Days absence?

Opinion 8 Ethics committees can lack adequate knowledge, can make mistakes, and can permit the hunting of whales out of Japan and the keeping and indirect tormenting of primates for morally and ethically quite unacceptable purposes.

Opinion 9. The apparent surprise expressed on the part of scientists and authorities alike is most unfortunate as this may be interpreted by the public as being indicative of them being completely out of touch with public perception and feeling concerning the worth of some pure research and decisions made about their natural heritage by public servants.

Opinion 10. We would respectfully ask all concerned people to avoid personal attacks upon Dr Day and her colleagues and to resist any desire to doubt anything but the best of scientific motives in them. It is our view that all responsibility for the present situation sits firmly upon the shoulders of the EPA and the ethics committees involved with regard to the granting of the permit to kill the bowerbirds. The EPA should be able to appreciate that it is unreasonable to expect a Queensland public, liable to criminal prosecution for merely picking up and keeping a road-killed common native animal, to accept the killing of forty-two adult male upland Wet Tropics endemic bowerbirds for whatever purpose.

Opinion 11. As long-standing members of the one hundred year old and scientifically highly regarded Royal Australasian Ornithologists' Union (Birds Australia) we are at a complete loss to understand why such an eminent association of most appropriately and highly qualified people in Australia was not approached for its considered opinion of Dr Day's application.

Fact 13. We shall be away on a long-ago-planned absence with family visiting us from the U.K. over the Xmas break. Upon our return we shall not be responding to further discussion of this topic unless it concerns official parties. A good Christmas and a Happy New Year to one and all.

Clifford Frith and Dawn Frith PhD

References

Frith, C.B. and Frith, D.W. 1995. Court site constancy, dispersion, male survival and court ownership in the male Tooth-billed Bowerbird, Scenopoeetes dentirostris (Ptilonorhynchidae). Emu 95, 84-98.

Frith, C.B. and Frith, D.W. 2000a. Bower system and structures of the Golden Bowerbird, Prionodura newtoniana (Ptilonorhynchidae). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 45, 293-316.

Frith, C.B. and Frith, D.W. 2000b. Fidelity to bowers, adult plumage acquisition, longevity and survival in male Golden Bowerbirds Prionodura newtoniana (Ptilonorhynchidae). Emu 100, 249-263.

Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Mearns, B. and Mearns, R. 1998. The Bird Collectors. Academic Press, San Diego.

Keith & Lindsay Fisher PO Box 2209, Cairns QLD 4870

From: Lloyd Nielsen
To: Birding-Aus
Date: 17 January 2001

. . .

There has been considerable media coverage in Far North Queensland over the last couple of weeks concerning the Bowerbird collecting/killing saga to which the local general public have reacted angrily. Consequently, QNPWS (EPA) have been attempting to play down the situation and to try to justify the very bad decision made to allow the killing! The main thrust has been by Peter Hennsler (Wildlife Manager, Cairns) and by Dr Julia Playford (Manager of QNPWS Research Coordination Unit, Brisbane).

Dr Playford issued a statement (ABC radio - 11.1.01) that the taking was necessary for this "important project" so that more can be learned about these bowerbrids and their well being, adding that when no Australians were working on these birds, American researchers were welcome. Dr Playford stated that 'major checks and balances' had been set in place (usual bureaucratic gobbledegook) and that the decision was 'an informed one' (more gobbledegook). The point was emphasised that NO birds were being collected AT ALL from National Parks and that these birds were not threatened or endangered in any way and were 'COMMON WILDLIFE.'

The statement that no birds were being collected from NPs was undoubtedly meant to appease a worried public. This is technically correct but the truth is that the two upland species had to have been collected from World Heritage Rainforest - an area we all thought was protected! There is currently an application lodged to take 7 Spotted Bowerbirds from Taunton NP in central Queensland - a park established to protect and study the endangered Bridled Nail-tailed Wallaby. No decision has been reached on this but one wonders what would have happened had the collecting not been exposed.

Dr Playford is apparently relatively new to her position and has a botanical background. To state that this study was of benefit to the birds displays a gross misunderstanding of the whole sorry saga. In her attempt to tie this study (originating from a Department of Psychology) to the welfare of the birds, it should be remembered that "the main focus for the killing of these birds is said to be to compare the brains of non-bower species with several bower-building species..." and "for a study of visual perception" (ref. Friths' Open Letter).

The department's line that the birds are not endangered or threatened and are 'common wildlife' also shows little understanding of the birds. How a senior member of the service can come to the conclusion that two upland bowerbird species inhabiting a very narrow strip of rainforest no more than a few kilometres wide at the most, along the high mountain range between Cooktown and Townsville and found nowhere else on earth - are 'common wildlife', is amazing. Sure, they are fairly common in that relatively small area of habitat but there is a big difference between 'common' and 'locally common'! Compare Dr Playford's and Peter Hennsler's statements with the opinion of the Friths, who considered "killing seven adult males of each species ('the minimal number of animals necessary for statistical power' - per the application) as being unacceptable in the case of the upland restricted Wet Tropics endemic bowerbird species".

Further, the Friths advised not to take birds during the breeding season - but they WERE taken - the worst possible time for the species! This in itself demonstrates no concern for the welfare of the birds! One can rightly ask - why the opinions of the Friths - the undoubted authorities on bowerbirds with 23 years of intensive study and experience - were not considered? Another pertinent point is that if and when global warming comes about, these birds of the narrow belt of cool upland rainforests will probably be some of the first to be adversely effected.

This study looks more and more like a fairly selfish exercise in pure science by a few American researchers with no concern for the welfare of the birds. Take for example an amendment to the permit submitted by the permit holder (Dr Day) on 11.9.00 to collect bowerbirds from 'PROTECTED' areas. (One would assume that this is from National Parks for it seems that parts of the World Heritage still covered by tenure other than National Park (defunct Timber Reserves etc) are open for collecting). To the NPWS's (EPA's) credit, this was refused.

As we saw, apparent red herrings were thrown in right from the beginning, e.g., assisting captive breeding knowledge when it is known the birds breed readily in captivity, assisting knowledge of Alzheimer's disease, debenture, menopause etc in humans, which the ethics committees and NPWS apparently accepted.

Another point which seems odd (and maybe there is a logical explanation for it) is the fact that the first application was submitted to the ethics committee at JCU in Townsville. The amendments were submitted to the CSIRO ethics committee at Atherton. It may be just coincidence but Dr David Westcott, one of the later signatories on the permit is apparently stationed at CSIRO Atherton.

It is obvious that there has been an attempt to keep the collecting not only from the general public but the birding community in general, later resulting in underhandedness, cover-up, deceit and even lies on the part of some people. A reliable and informed source recently related to me that the taking of the bowerbirds was to be kept 'under wraps' and would have succeeded except that a conversation by certain people was overheard at Ivy Cottage, Paluma (Mt Spec, NW of Townsville) - perhaps the Townsville BOCA people are in a better position to clarify this. If this is correct, the collecting would have gone unnoticed had not that person been on the spot at the time.

Most people agree that the blame seems to lie directly with ethics committees and NPWS (EPA). These sorts of exercises where science appears to overstep the mark and which are in turn condoned by ethics committees and the Environmental Protection Agency alienate not only the public (witness the current reaction from the local general public) but other scientists as well. Just last night I spoke with an Australian and an American researcher who both reacted in disbelief. And quite a number of NPWS Officers are privately disgusted by the actions of their department. It makes a farce of the term Environmental Protection Agency (the most recent name for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Department!)

One wonders how many other permits have been issued in secrecy? Perhaps it is high time to look at those which have been issued in the past!

Lloyd Nielsen
Mt Molloy
Mth Qld

To: Birding-Aus
From: Keith & Lindsay Fisher
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000

We have been asked by Jon Nott to post this information sheet he has put together.

Bowerbird Collection Information Sheet

Permit was issued by Environment Protection Agency, Cairns
Recipient Dr Lainy Day Post Doctorate James Cook University
Project funded by US National Institute of Health
Has been passed by Ethics Committees in the US and James Cook University
Project involves study of brain physiology
Pure science project

This is a project with obscure outcomes related to distribution of testosterone receptors in the brain and how they could be related to post menopause in women, Alzheimer's and spinal repair in nervous systems. Why is there a need to collect Bowerbirds? The researchers need to have stage builders. The permit was to collect forty-two birds in total which were all adult males in breeding season. Conditions: No more than two birds from any one area; no icon birds.

Most of the birds have been collected although no one knows just how many or exactly where, which raises a concern. There was a public meeting convened at Paluma where Dr Day subsequently decided not to collect. At this meeting it was reported that the project had Birds Australia approval which was untrue. There was an application put to the Townsville City Council to collect Great Bowerbirds which was refused by Greg Bruce (Environment Officer of the T.C.C.). Dr Day has collected in the Townsville Cemetery which was part of another study site. The bulk of the collecting has been carried out on D.N.R. land, Mt Windsor, Mt Lewis and Atherton Tablelands. The brains are to be shared by another research group. The spinal cords go to another research group. The skins will go to the national collection in Canberra. The birds are being anaesthetised not shot. The EPA Cairns office said that because the project had been passed by two ethics committees they were bound under Qld legislation to issue the permit. The project was looked at by EPA staff including Dr Stephen Garnett. [Not true - see corrective message below.] There has been a request by a US based research team for a permit to collect a similar number of female Bowerbirds for the same research. This I think was refused but this has not been confirmed. This appears to be a fashionable research subject.

Birds Australia North Queensland Group (BA-NQG) Concerns:

1. There is no conservation value in this project.

2. There is no benefit for management or community

3. The project has been popularised by the argument that this will benefit humanity with obscure outcomes such as Post Menopause in women, spinal rebuilding and Alzheimer's disease etc.

4. There is no check on how many birds have actually been taken to date or exactly where from.

5. There is a mechanism in Victoria that applications to Environment Australia to collect birds are automatically referred to the conservation section of Birds Australia.

6. No such referral system exists in Queensland.

7. It is very difficult to get a permit to take groups of people into public areas to observe Bowerbirds yet this person can get a permit to collect the birds.

8. If Birds Australia (RAOU) are the recognised ornithological scientific group in Australia recognised and financially supported by Federal Government, heavily funded for Atlas and land acquisition etc and a referral agency for permits concerning birds in Victoria can we not have the same procedures put in place in Queensland?

9. Who are on the Ethics committees at universities and should Birds Australia be represented on these?

10. Birds Australia are not against collecting per se but there has to be a relevance to the scientific study of the species involved and or a conservation outcome for the management and or long term viability of a species.

11. The fact that there has been another application to collect so close to the one that has been approved surely should set alarm bells ringing. Already another US research group want to collect 42 female bowerbirds.

12. We have been informed that Dr Day had offered to share genetic material with Gerry Borgia who is heading another US research team in a parallel project but he refused her offer. His study is on sexual selection. Will this lead to further application to collect more Bowerbirds.

13. Some of the birds which will be collected are over 20 years old and would be the head of the gene pool for a large number of females in that area.

14. Further to point eight Birds Australia North Queensland is having discussions with the EPA on setting up of procedures to eliminate the risk of similar instances like this happening in the future. I would appeal to all concerned parties that this should be very productive and I would like to pursue these discussions without further media pressure and or public pressure on the EPA and related agencies for the time being

Jon Nott - Convenor BA-NQG

Keith & Lindsay Fisher
PO Box 2209
Cairns (16° 55' 40" S 145° 46' 35" E)
Far North QLD 4870
Australia

Posted to Birding-Aus on 4 February 2001:

Jon Nott has asked me to post the following message.

Cheers, Keith [Fisher].

Subject: Bowerbird

Now that Stephen Garnett is back from his Christmas holiday he assures me he never ever saw the permit application to collect Bowerbirds by Lainy Day. In fact when he was shown a subsequent application to collect more Bowerbirds by another researcher he rejected it out of hand. I apologise for any embarrassment that this may have caused Stephen but Peter Hennsler from Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service stated to me categorically that he had shown Lainy Day's permit application to collect Bowerbirds to office staff including Stephen Garnett. Obviously this was not the case.

Jon Nott

Keith & Lindsay Fisher
PO Box 2209
Cairns (16° 55' 40" S 145° 46' 35" E)
Far North QLD 4870
Australia

UCSB Department of Psychology

Visiting Researchers for 2000-2001

Elaine (Lainy) Day

Lainy received her Ph.D. in May 1999 from the University of Texas in Austin. She studied both proximate and ultimate aspects of spatial cognition in a variety of animal models under the supervision of Timothy Schallert, Walter Wilczynski, and David Crews. While working as a postdoctoral fellow at UCSB, Dr. Day will be studying the perceptual and neural underpinnings of categorical perception in the Great Bowerbird and its relation to mating behavior and reproductive physiology. She will be supervised by Professor Deborah Olster of the Department of Psychology and Professor John Endler of the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology. This collaboration will extend the main focus of both Dr. Olster's behavioral neuroendocrinology lab and Dr. Endler's ecological genetics labs. Lainy will be on campus from January to June and away on fieldwork in Townsville, Queensland, Australia the rest of the year.

John Endler - Current Research

[Nothing in the text about bowerbirds, but this graphic follows.]