Patagioenas fasciata - (Say, 1822)
Band-tailed Pigeon
Other Common Names: Pombo-de-Coleira-Branca
Synonym(s): Columba fasciata Say, 1823
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Patagioenas fasciata (Say, 1823) (TSN 676899)
French Common Names: Pigeon à queue barrée
Spanish Common Names: Paloma de Collar, Paloma de Nuca Blanca
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103830
Element Code: ABNPB01080
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Birds - Other Birds
Image 10692

© Dick Cannings

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Aves Columbiformes Columbidae Patagioenas
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.
Concept Reference Code: B98AOU01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Columba fasciata
Taxonomic Comments: On the basis of studies by Johnson and Clayton (2000) and Johnson et al. (2001) of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, and a review of morphological (Ridgway 1916), serological (Cumley and Irwin 1944), and behavioral (Johnston 1962) characters, we place New World pigeons formerly included in Columba in a separate genus, Patagioenas Reichenback, 1853 (AOU 2003).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 09Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 14Dec2000
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Still widespread and relatively common from British Columbia to Peru and Argentina, but long-term declines have occurred in most parts of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4B,N4N (18May2001)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3N4 (15Jan2018)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alaska (S3B), Arizona (S4), California (SNR), Colorado (S4B), Idaho (SNA), Navajo Nation (S3B), Nevada (S3), New Mexico (S4), Oregon (S3B), Texas (S4B), Utah (S3B), Washington (S3S4B,S4N)
Canada British Columbia (S3S4)

Other Statuses

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1/Annexe 1 Status: SC (04Feb2011)
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Special Concern (28Nov2008)
Comments on COSEWIC: Reason for Designation: This large pigeon has suffered long-term declines throughout its range in the western mountains of North America, due in part to overhunting. Harvest has been severely limited in Canada for the past 16 years. Although population surveys (e.g. Breeding Bird Survey and mineral site counts) have low precision, they do suggest a stabilization of the population in the last decade. The species is long-lived (up to 22 years) and has a slow reproductive rate; females typically lay only one or two eggs per year. Forestry may negatively affect habitat in the long term, creating dense second-growth forests with few berry-producing shrubs; the pigeons also are susceptible to disturbance at isolated mineral sources needed for their nutrition.

Status History: Designated Special Concern in November 2008. Assessment based on a new status report.

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: BREEDING, FASCIATA group: southwestern British Columbia, Utah, north-central Colorado, south to southern Baja California, Mexican tableland, and mountains of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and north-central Nicaragua (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING, FASCIATA group: western Washington, central California and southwestern U.S. south through breeding range, rarely north to British Columbia (AOU 1998). RESIDENT, ALBILINEA group: mountains of Costa Rica and western Panama; and in South America in mountains from Venezuela, Trinidad, and Colombia south to Peru, Bolivia, and northwestern Argentina (AOU 1998).

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Coastal population was estimated at 2.4-3.1 million individuals in 1992 (USFWS 1996).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Habitat degradation and destruction, and overhunting have been cited as the primary threats. Declines in early twentieth century due to overhunting, and populations rallied with hunting regulation. Recent Pacific Coast population declines thought to be related to widespread habitat alteration due to forestry practices in the latter part of the twentieth century, in particular replacement of old-growth forests by even-age monocultures of fast-growing conifers, but this needs more empirical study (Braun 1994, Sanders 1999). In Costa Rica, large flocks were greatly reduced by shooting in many areas in past years (Stiles and Skutch 1989). In Panama, has decreased in recent decades due to forest destruction and shooting (Ridgely and Gwynne 1989). In Colombia, has declined because of habitat loss (Hilty and Brown 1986). Natural threats include predators (mainly raptors), egg loss and squab mortality, and trichomoniasis (TRICHOMONAS GALLINAE). A Pacific Coast strain of trichomoniasis is particularly virulent, and caused the deaths of 15-16,000 pigeons in 1988 (Braun 1994).

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: North American populations plummeted in early decades of the twentieth century, but gradually recovered after legal protection (Bent 1932, Grinnell and Miller 1944). More recently, long-term population trend estimates indicate significant declines over the past 15-30 years in Pacific Coast populations. Surveys are insufficient to accurately assess status and trends of Interior populations. Oregon Mineral Site Surveys and Washington Call Counts both indicate long-term declining trends in Coastal populations. Oregon Mineral Site surveys show an average annual change of -2% between 1968 and 1997 (95% C.I. -4% to 2%; N=8 sites; Casazza et al. 2000). Likewise Washington Call Counts show a long-term average annual decline of -1.5% between 1975 and 1998 (90% C.I.: -5.5% to 2.4%; N=65 survey routes; not significant; WDFW 1999). Call Count data showed a significant increase in the early 1990's which has since somewhat leveled off (WDFW 1999). Harvest rates have likewise declined dramatically. In the three Coastal states harvests dropped from 550,000 birds in 1968 to 70,000 in 1988, and in British Columbia from 14,000 in 1967 to fewer than 500 in 1991 (Braun 1994). In the four Interior states (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah), estimates from available hunting surveys for 1968 to 1999 show declines by an order of magnitude: total number of hunters declined from 1129 to 161, and number of pigeons harvested declined from 2585 to 283 (Four Corners Band-tailed Pigeon Subcommittee 2000). Reduced harvests are due in part to more restrictive limits and seasons, but also likely reflect smaller populations (Braun 1994, Four Corners Band-tailed Pigeon Subcommittee 2000). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data show significant long-term declines survey-wide and for Coastal populations, but sample sizes for Interior populations are too small for reliable trend estimates (Sauer et. al 2000). Between 1966 and 1999, populations declined significantly survey-wide by an average -2.9% per year (P = 0.00, N = 194 survey routes), which translates to a total decline of 62% in 34 years. Long-term declines were also significant for the Pacific Coast region as a whole (-2.4% annually, P = 0.04, N = 146) and in the analysis regions of British Columbia (-3.9%, P = 0.01, N = 22), Oregon (-1.8%, P = 0.01, N = 27), and the Sierra Nevada (-4.2%, P = 0.04, N = 17). Between 1980 and 1999 declines were significant in these same analysis areas (Survey-wide: -5.8%, P = 0.00, N = 171; Pacific Coast region: -4.1%, P = 0.05, N = 131; British Columbia: -10.6%, P = 0.01, N = 18; Oregon: -7.3%, P = 0.01, N = 27; Sierra Nevada: -8.3%, P = 0.04, N = 16). In the past ten years, 1990-98, broad regional trends are not statistically significant, but show a declining tendency (survey-wide: -6.29%, P = 0.068, N = 138; British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California inclusive: -6.08%, P = 0.115, N = 123; Sauer et. al 2000). Partners in Flight lists the species as a priority for conservation in oak woodlands of the Sierra Nevada region and in coniferous forests of the Southern Pacific Rainforests region (Pashley et al. 2000). For southwestern ponderosa pine habitats, Hall et al. (1997) list the species as of moderate conservation concern in Arizona and high concern in New Mexico. No detailed information available for neotropics, but has declined in Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia (Stiles and Skutch 1989, Ridgely and Gwynne 1989, Hilty and Brown 1986).

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Species-specific surveys required to more precisely determine population status and establish baselines for future trend studies (Casazza et al. 2000).

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) BREEDING, FASCIATA group: southwestern British Columbia, Utah, north-central Colorado, south to southern Baja California, Mexican tableland, and mountains of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and north-central Nicaragua (AOU 1998). NON-BREEDING, FASCIATA group: western Washington, central California and southwestern U.S. south through breeding range, rarely north to British Columbia (AOU 1998). RESIDENT, ALBILINEA group: mountains of Costa Rica and western Panama; and in South America in mountains from Venezuela, Trinidad, and Colombia south to Peru, Bolivia, and northwestern Argentina (AOU 1998).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The maps for birds represent the breeding status by state and province. In some jurisdictions, the subnational statuses for common species have not been assessed and the status is shown as not-assessed (SNR). In some jurisdictions, the subnational status refers to the status as a non-breeder; these errors will be corrected in future versions of these maps. A species is not shown in a jurisdiction if it is not known to breed in the jurisdiction or if it occurs only accidentally or casually in the jurisdiction. Thus, the species may occur in a jurisdiction as a seasonal non-breeding resident or as a migratory transient but this will not be indicated on these maps. See other maps on this web site that depict the Western Hemisphere ranges of these species at all seasons of the year.
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, AZ, CA, CO, ID, NM, NN, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA
Canada BC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; WILDSPACETM 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
ID Ada (16001), Benewah (16009), Blaine (16013)
NM Otero (35035), Rio Arriba (35039), San Miguel (35047), Sandoval (35043), Santa Fe (35049), Taos (35055)
UT Beaver (49001)*, Duchesne (49013)*, Garfield (49017)*, Grand (49019), Iron (49021)*, Kane (49025)*, Millard (49027)*, Salt Lake (49035)*, San Juan (49037), Sanpete (49039)*, Sevier (49041)*, Utah (49049), Wasatch (49051), Washington (49053)*, Wayne (49055)*
WA Clallam (53009), Cowlitz (53015), Grays Harbor (53027), Island (53029), Jefferson (53031), King (53033), Klickitat (53039), Mason (53045), Pacific (53049), Pierce (53053), Skagit (53057), Thurston (53067), Whatcom (53073)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
13 Upper Rio Grande (13020101)+, Rio Chama (13020102)+, Rio Grande-Santa Fe (13020201)+, Tularosa Valley (13050003)+, Salt Basin (13050004)+, Pecos headwaters (13060001)+, Rio Penasco (13060010)+
14 Upper Dolores (14030002)+*, Lower Dolores (14030004)+, Upper Colorado-Kane Springs (14030005)+, Duchesne (14060003)+*, Upper Lake Powell (14070001)+*, Muddy (14070002)+*, Fremont (14070003)+*, Dirty Devil (14070004)+*, Escalante (14070005)+*, Lower San Juan-Four Corners (14080201)+*, Montezuma (14080203)+*
15 Kanab (15010003)+*, Upper Virgin (15010008)+*
16 Utah Lake (16020201)+, Spanish Fork (16020202)+*, Provo (16020203)+, Jordan (16020204)+*, Upper Sevier (16030001)+*, East Fork Sevier (16030002)+*, Middle Sevier (16030003)+*, San Pitch (16030004)+*, Lower Sevier (16030005)+*, Escalante Desert (16030006)+*, Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver (16030007)+*
17 St. Joe (17010304)+, Big Wood (17040219)+, Lower Boise (17050114)+, Klickitat (17070106)+, Lewis (17080002)+, Lower Columbia (17080006)+, Hoh-Quillayute (17100101)+, Lower Chehalis (17100104)+, Willapa Bay (17100106)+, Fraser (17110001)+, Strait of Georgia (17110002)+, Nooksack (17110004)+, Snoqualmie (17110010)+, Nisqually (17110015)+, Skokomish (17110017)+, Hood Canal (17110018)+, Puget Sound (17110019)+, Crescent-Hoko (17110021)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A bird (pigeon).
General Description: See White and Braun (1978) for information on age and sex determination of juveniles.
Reproduction Comments: Breeding season is prolonged, beginning in March in south to early May in north; breeding reported well into fall in some areas, probably in response to food availability (Gutierrez et al. 1975, Jarvis and Passmore 1992, Braun 1994, Baicich and Harrison 1997). Timing of breeding less a factor of latitude or photoperiod than of food availability (Gutierrez et al. 1975, Jarvis and Passmore 1992). Two broods per season not unusual, and three broods possible (Keppie and Braun 2000). In Colorado and New Mexico, breeds in spring and summer, sometimes in fall in New Mexico if acorns are abundant (Gutierrez et al. 1975).

Clutch size usually one (85-95%), infrequently two. Incubation by both sexes, about 18-20 days. Nestling altricial and downy. Young leaves nest in 25-30 days. (Terres 1980, Baicich and Harrison 1997; Keppie and Braun 2000).

Will defend nest area and there is evidence of territorial flight displays and defense (Peeters 1962, Jackman and Scott 1975), but territoriality is not well-studied (Keppie and Braun 2000). Based on second-hand reports, Neff (1947) suggested that this species is a communal nester in New Mexico, but this has not been corroborated by any other subsequent research. Braun (1994) suggested that repeated use of nest tree with a new nest constructed each year may give the appearance of communal nesting and asserts that birds of Interior populations are solitary nesters.

Ecology Comments: Gregarious year-round; size of foraging and migrating flocks may range from tens to many hundreds of birds (Keppie and Braun 2000). In Colorado, fairly discrete subpopulations occur in rather well-defined areas (Braun 1972). Nomadic in response to food availability. See Jarvis and Passmore (1992) for detailed ecological study in Oregon. Also see Jackman and Scott (1975), Braun (1994), and Keppie and Braun (2000) for more extensive ecological and life history summaries.
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: Y
Mobility and Migration Comments: Partial migrant. Northern Coastal and northern Interior breeding populations are mostly migratory; arrive in northern Coastal areas March-May, in northern Interior areas generally late March-May. Return southward late August-October (Terres 1980; Keppie and Braun 2000). Oregon birds probably do not begin autumn migration before late September (Jarvis and Passmore 1992).

Northern Coastal populations migrate to southern California and Baja California, but in some northern urban centers (e.g., Puget Sound, Washington; Vancouver Island, British Columbia) may be present year-round where feeders and holly orchards are available (Keppie and Braun 2000). Colorado birds migrate and winter along the Sierra Madre Occidental in western Mexico (Schroeder and Braun 1993). Due to nomadic habits, it can be difficult to distinguish migration chronology from shorter-distance travels for foraging (Keppie and Braun, in press).

Southern populations in Mexico, Central America and South America are year-round residents but considered local nomads (Hilty and Brown 1986, Stiles and Skutch 1989, Howell and Webb 1995).

Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: BREEDING: Generally found in temperate and mountain coniferous and mixed forests and woodlands, especially pine-oak woodlands, and locally in southern lowlands; also forage in cultivated areas, suburban gardens and parks (Subtropical and Temperate zones) (AOU 1983; Braun 1994). Will often forage in diverse habitats not used for nesting.

North American Coastal populations usually found below 1,000 m in a variety of forest types, especially pine-oak, spruce, fir, Douglas-fir (PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII), redwood (SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS), cedar (THUJA spp.), hemlock (TSUGA spp.) and alder (ALNUS spp.; Braun 1994). In Oregon and Washington, typically found in Douglas-fir, hemlock, cedar, and spruce (Braun 1994). In Oregon, most abundant in western third of the Coast Range in association with distribution of Pacific red elder and cascara buckthorn (Sanders 1999). Recorded occasionally foraging above timber line on LUPINUS species (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940). In northern California, found in Douglas-fir forests, spruce groves, alder thickets and redwood snags (Glover 1953, Braun 1994). May use spruce in greater proportion to availability (Glover 1953). In southern California, typically use pine-oak (Braun 1994).

Interior populations nest in mountains, with highest densities between 1,600 and 2,700 m in areas dominated by ponderosa pine (PINUS PONDEROSA) and oak (QUERCUS spp.), but are also found in lodgepole pine (P. CONTORTA), pine-Douglas-fir forests, and spruce-Douglas-fir-fir (PICEA-PSEUDOTSUGA-ABIES; Braun 1994; Keppie and Braun 2000). In Colorado, most abundant in forests between 1,800 and 3,200 m and those dominated by ponderosa pine and Gambel oak (QUERCUS GAMBELLI); also uses spruce-fir-aspen (PICEA-PSEUDOTSUGA-POPULUS), lodgepole pine (P. CONTORTA), limber pine (P. FLEXILIS), riparian habitats and agricultural areas in foothills (Braun 1973, Andrews and Righter 1992). In Utah, uses Gambel oak and pinyon pine (P. EDULIS, P. MONOPHYLLA); in Arizona and New Mexico uses oak-juniper (QUERCUS-JUNIPERUS) and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Keppie and Braun 2000).

In the neotropics, a bird of mountainous forested country, usually in deciduous broadleaf forests, broadleaf evergreen forests and scrub (Rappole et al. 1995). In Mexico and Central America, found in highland pine-oak, pine-oak-fir, and oak woodlands, between 1000 and 3000 m during the breeding season (Stiles and Skutch 1989, Hutto 1992, Howell and Webb 1995). In Panama, uses forest, forest borders and clearings with large trees between 1200 and 3000 meters (Ridgely and Gwynne 1989). In Colombia, usually found between 2000 and 3000 meters in humid mountain forest habitats, as well as clearings with scattered large trees and steep scrubby slopes (Hilty and Brown 1986). In Venezuela, recorded in northern mountain habitats, including paramos, open fields with scattered trees, savannas, second growth, and wheat fields. Occurs between 900 and 3000 meters north of the Orinoco River, between 1200 and 3000 meters south of the Orinoco (DeSchauensee and Phelps 1978). May range seasonally to areas higher or lower than 'normal' range (Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely and Gwynne 1989, Stiles and Skutch 1989, Howell and Webb 1995).

Mineral springs and mineral graveling sites are important for mineral intake by adults, especially during the nesting season. Pigeons show strong fidelity to mineral sites (Jarvis and Passmore 1992). Use of mineral sites is most notable in Coastal populations, and less so in Interior populations where mineral needs may instead be satisfied by abrasion of grit that is highly basic (Braun 1994). Although several authors suggested that mineral sites provided calcium in diet (March and Sadlier 1972, Jarvis and Passmore 1992), a study in Oregon revealed sites to be low in calcium but high in sodium, where principal foods (fruits of SAMBUCUS spp. and RHAMNUS PURSHIANA) were high in calcium and low in sodium (Sanders and Jarvis 2000). Site use probably depends not only on mineral content, but also vegetation structure, development, level of human activity, and traditional use by pigeons (Sanders and Jarvis 2000).

Nest habitat (e.g., nest placement, type and age of tree or shrub, elevation and aspect) varies greatly throughout range (Braun 1994). Will nest in a tree or shrub 4-10 m from the ground, usually near the bole in dense foliage, and often next to an opening or above a slope or precipice. The nest is a loose platform of twigs (Terres 1980; Braun 1994; Baicich and Harrison 1997). Birds display strong fidelity to nest area (Braun 1972, Schroeder and Braun 1993), and nest trees may be used repeatedly with new nests constructed each year (Braun 1994).

NONBREEDING: Interior populations winter primarily in pine-oak woodlands and montane coniferous forests in Mexico, along the Sierra Madre Occidental; also in tropical deciduous forests in Sinaloa (Braun 1994). Coastal populations winter from central California to Baja California in pine-oak woodlands, coastal chaparral (ADENOSTOMA, ARCTOSTAPHYLOS, CEANOTHUS, and QUERCUS spp.) and adjacent agricultural areas (Jeffrey 1977).

Adult Food Habits: Frugivore, Granivore
Immature Food Habits: Frugivore, Granivore
Food Comments: Diet varies by season and location; 98% vegetarian (Keppie and Braun 2000). Feeds on new buds, flowers, nuts, seeds, grain and berries (e.g., acorns, hazelnuts, pine seeds, waste oats, barley and corn, wild grapes, elderberries, mulberries, blueberries, etc.); also eats some insects (Terres 1980; Braun 1994; Keppie and Braun 2000). In Oregon, red elder and cascara buckthorn are primary foods during nesting season (Jarvis and Passmore 1992). Will readily exploit stored or waste agricultural grains, and will use bird feeders (Braun 1994). In Pacific Coast states, congregates at mineral springs to consume minerals from mid-June to mid-September; may be essential for sodium intake (Jarvis and Passmore 1992; Sanders and Jarvis 2000).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Diurnal
Length: 37 centimeters
Weight: 398 grams
Economic Attributes
Help
Economic Comments: From 1957 to 1983, harvest in California, Oregon, and Washington averaged 414,000, with 55% of the harvest in California (Jarvis and Passmore 1992). The 1995 harvest was an estimated 2074 in Oregon and 10,428 in California (season closed in Wasington) (USFWS 1996). Harvest in the Four Corners region was 1518 in 1995, down from 6000 in earlier years (USFWS 1996).
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: A bird of montane coniferous forests and oak woodlands. Of seven subspecies occurring in the Americas, only one occurs in North America, in two distinct geographic areas: an Interior population in the Southwest Four Corners region and a Coastal population in the Pacific Coast states and provinces. Gregarious year-round and nomadic; move with the availability of food, often showing up in towns and agricultural areas.

Bandtails have been the object of a long history of market and sport hunting, and sport hunting continues to a limited extent in six western states and Mexico. Pacific Coast populations have declined steeply, losing an estimated 60% of the population in the last 34 years. Causes of declines are mostly unstudied, but may be associated with widespread changes in forest landscapes. A low reproductive rate contributes to concern for the species' recovery. The current lack of consistent and standardized population surveys throughout the range of the two populations hampers effective management.

Species Impacts: Suggestions that pigeons carry agricultural diseases are unsubstantiated (Keppie and Braun 2000). Many early reports of crop damage by pigeons (e.g., soft fruits and grain crops) and these justified the institution of regulated hunting seasons in the 1930s. Assumptions that they cause crop damage by digging grain or pulling sprouts unfounded as birds mostly feed on unsprouted grain, waste or shattered grain from ground surface. Do not alight on standing grains, but will feed on cut barley before harvest and shocked wheat (Neff 1947, Braun 1994, Keppie and Braun 2000). No recent reports of major crop damage (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, Keppie and Braun 2000).
Restoration Potential: Restoration will require a better understanding of population status, threats to the species, and landscape relationships. Management that maintains a combination of closed-canopy mature to old-growth forest, open-canopy forest with abundant food plants (e.g. oaks and fruiting shrubs), mineral sites and open water across the landscape should benefit the species.
Preserve Selection & Design Considerations: Nomadic, and uses large areas for foraging. Little information is available on home range, territory, and extent of movements, although fidelity to nesting areas, foraging areas, and mineral sites is strong (Braun 1972, Jarvis and Passmore 1992, Schroeder and Braun 1993).

In the Oregon Coast Range, mean home range recorded for radio-tagged adults was 11,121 ha (SD +/- 24,298 ha, N = 70; Leonard 1998, cited in Keppie and Braun 2000). In northern California, nesting territories were reported to range from 0.16 to 0.81 kilometer (0.10 to 0.5 mile) in radius, but unclear how territory size was determined (Glover 1953). Size of nesting territory may vary with topography, forest cover, and proximity to water (Glover 1953). In Colorado, banding returns revealed that regular movements during breeding season were restricted to a range less than 40 air miles in distance (< 65 kilometers; Braun 1972).

Little information exists on relationship to landscape patterns, such as fragmentation effects or use of corridors. In northwestern California, avoided forest edges created by clearcuts (Rosenberg and Raphael 1986). Nests are usually more than 20 meters from openings and more than 365 meters from human habitations (Glover 1953). Movements between nesting, roosting, and feeding sites have a tendency to follow stream courses (Glover 1953, Kautz and Braun 2000).

Management Requirements: POPULATION MANAGEMENT: Nomadic nature complicates study, and the lack of standardized population surveys hampers management. Birds tend to concentrate foraging in one area during times of local food abundance and then move on (Keppie and Braun, in press). However, there is considerable evidence of strong fidelity to breeding areas (Braun 1972, Schroeder and Braun 1993) and it should be possible to manage on a sub-population basis (Braun 1994). For example, separate hunting regulations could be established for different populations within a state.

See Braun (1994) for a summary of annual survival estimates from various sources. Estimates of adult annual survival rates range from 60% to 73% in Colorado, and from 60% to 77% for coastal populations (Braun 1994). Jarvis and Passmore (1992) concluded that maintenance of a stable population (with the mean adult survival rate of 64% observed in their study) required a production rate at or near the estimated biotic potential (40.8%). But a stable population could also be maintained with the estimated rate of recruitment observed (23%) and high rates of survival (83% for adults, 68% for juveniles).

HABITAT MANAGEMENT: Important habitat components include closed-canopy forests for nest sites, open-canopy forests for foraging, and presence of mineral springs and licks (Sanders 1999). Close proximity to free water (< 400 meters) is also important (Glover 1953). Food availability apparently greatly influences breeding and flock movements (Gutierrez et al. 1975), and any management activity that reduces mast production or the availability of fruiting shrubs and other primary foods would be detrimental.

There is no information available on how changes in agriculture and land-use practices may have affected the species (Keppie and Braun 2000). Bandtails use various forest successional stages for various purposes, but there is little quantitative information available on relationship to forest management activities and landscape patterns to aid the manager. Given the widespread landscape changes over the past 50 years these relationships need much further investigation, particularly at landscape scales.

In Northwestern California, Hagar (1960) observed bandtails both in virgin Douglas-fir forest and in brush successional stages of harvest units, but not in 'weed' successional stages. Glover (1953) found nests chiefly in 'dense' (undefined) canopy cover, and 21 to 365 m from habitat openings. Birds used spruce (PICEA sp.) in greater proportion to its availability; spruce groves (20-60 years) and alder thickets (ALNUS; 20-40 years) provided dense nesting and roosting cover; and redwood snags (SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS) provided prominent perches (Glover 1953). Glover (1953) concluded that logging was detrimental to pigeons: he found only one of 53 nesting territories located in an area that had been logged within 10 years; all of eight observed nests were more than two miles from logging activities; and no migrating pigeons were observed within 800 meters of logging operations or near clearcuts less than three years old. However, he also noted that succession of plants in harvest units and burns can also increase abundance of food plants (e.g. RUBUS spp, SAMBUCUS spp., RHAMNUS PURSHIANA).

A study in the southern Oregon Coast Range found bandtails more abundant in mature (80-120 years old) and old-growth (200-525 years) Douglas-fir forests (PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII) than in young stands (40-72 years; Carey et al. 1991). In southern Washington Cascades Douglas-fir forests bandtails were more abundant in mature stands (95-190 years old) than in wet old-growth (250-700 yrs) or young stands (55-80 years; Manuwal 1991). In Oregon, Pacific red elder (SAMBUCUS RACEMOSA var. ARBORESCENS) and cascara buckthorn (RHAMNUS PURSHIANA) are especially important for forage during the nesting season (Jarvis and Passmore 1992, Sanders 1999).

Marcot (1984) found them in relatively high densities in young post-harvest shrub stands of northern California Douglas-fir forests, and concluded that they have probably increased since extensive clear-cutting began in the area in the 1950s. However, Raphael et al. (1988) found them in highest densities in saw timber and mature stands of northern California Douglas-fir forests, and concluded that future population trends would be positive as harvest units matured. (Though see 'Trends' section below.)

In a giant sequoia forest (SEQUOIA GIGANTEA), density declined after a treatment that removed the brush/sapling understory of white fir (ABIES CONCOLOR) and incense cedar (LIBOCEDRUS DECURRENS), removed standing dead trees, and burned the remaining slash (Kilgore 1971).

Mineral sites are important for supplementary sodium intake and should be included in management strategies, particularly for the Coastal population. In Oregon, scarcity of sites apparently is not a limiting factor for population size; however most known sites are located on private lands and are thus vulnerable to changes in land use (Sanders and Jarvis 2000).

Easily attracted to grain at bait stations, livestock feeding sites, storage areas, etc. and will continue to use such sites throughout the season (Curtis and Braun 1983a, Braun 1994). Bait stations may be used to supplement food and increase production where food is limiting.

Monitoring Requirements: The lack of effective population monitoring and harvest surveys poses the greatest hurdle for effective management. Not well monitored by general bird surveys such as the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) because of low detection rates. Surveys that target the species specifically, such as mineral site surveys and call counts, are needed for adequate population indices and trend estimates. However, call counts and mineral site surveys are less effective for Interior populations because of low densities and low dependence on mineral sites there. Despite numerous efforts to test a variety of techniques, there is not yet a standardized survey method that can reliably estimate population trends throughout the range. Further, most banding data is now 20 to 30 years old, and new banding programs are needed to provide more up to date information on survival and recruitment (Braun 1994).

See Casazza et al. (2000) for a full discussion of the statistical power (i.e., the probability of detecting a significant change, assuming a change exists) of monitoring programs currently in place: BBS, Washington Call Counts, and Oregon and Washington Mineral Site surveys. For Coastal populations, the BBS is adequate only for long-term regional trend estimates of 10 years or more. Statistical power drops off quickly for trend periods less than 10 years, presenting a problem for those who wish to track shorter-term population changes. For example, for a five-year trend estimate, 100 survey routes are needed to obtain an 88% chance of detecting a 20% annual change. However, changes of less than 10% are more typical and can mean large losses to a population if declines accumulate over several years.

Casazza et al. (2000) recommend mineral site surveys to track trends in Coastal populations. Mineral site surveys can provide the most statistically robust method for both short and long-term trends, and also provide an accurate index for Coastal populations, particularly if California, Oregon, and Washington surveys are combined. Conducting counts at 20 mineral sites throughout the species' breeding range would provide a 90% chance of detecting a 20% annual change over a three-year period; 60 surveys are needed for a 70% chance of detecting a 10% annual change in three years. Again, however, the method will not detect annual changes of less than 10% over the short-term with much power (with 100 sites, one can obtain only a 36% chance of detecting a 5% annual change; Casazza et al. 2000).

See Sanders (1999) for point count (call count) method to estimate relative abundance. Counts to detect 'coo' calls should be conducted > 800 meters apart, begin 10 minutes before sunrise, last 1 hour at each point, and be conducted during season of peak calling for the region. WDFW (1999) describes methods for Washington Call Count and Mineral Site surveys. Call Counts may have limited applicability where road access is limited or pigeon densities are low, such as for Interior populations (Jeffrey 1989).

Kautz and Braun (2000) report on effectiveness of capture-recapture: with some care, capture-recapture methods can be used to estimate an index of population size. See Braun (1976) for methods of locating, trapping, and banding. Curtis et al. (1983) describe use and effects of wing markers. A wing tag fastened by a strap of tag material around the base of the humerus posed no apparent effect on mobility. Curtis and Braun (1983b) describe use of radio-telemetry to locate nests of marked birds.

Permanent bait stations have possibilities for use in monitoring populations in small areas where food is limiting. Bait stations should be established in areas of pigeon concentrations and preferably in open coniferous forests with minimal human disturbance (Curtis and Braun 1983a, Braun 1994).

Management Research Needs: Research is needed on specific habitat requirements through all life stages and seasons for both Coastal and Interior populations. Especially need a current understanding of response to forestry and land management practices (e.g. natural and prescribed fire, herbicide applications, and various silvicultural prescriptions). Details of relationships to landscape patterns are virtually unknown. Most details of life history in Meso-American populations have been little studied, as are the species' needs at stopover and wintering areas. See Jarvis and Passmore (1992), Braun (1994), and Keppie and Braun (2000) for extensive list of research needs, including monitoring, management, habitat relationships, effects of hunting mortality, recruitment and survival rates, and effects of habitat alterations, management activities, and virulent disease.
Biological Research Needs: Virtually all aspects of the species' life history need further study, particularly habitat relationships across the species' range and throughout the seasons, and ecological details for wintering and resident populations in Meso-America. Seasonal nutritional requirements, migration patterns, philopatry, territoriality, intraspecific behavior, productivity and survivorship all need further study.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Breeding
Subtype(s): Mineral site, Breeding site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of breeding (including historical); and potential recurring breeding at a given location, minimally a reliable observation of one or more breeding pairs in appropriate habitat. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single breeding events outside the normal breeding distribution.
Mapping Guidance: Occurrences include nesting areas and corresponding same-season feeding/drinking areas, regardless of how far apart they are. Different functional areas may be mapped as separate polygons if they are not closely adjacent to each other.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distances for this highly mobile bird are set such that occurrences are of practical size for conservation purposes; occurrences do not necessarily represent demographically distinct populations. Occurrence separations are based on nest sites/areas; nest sites separated by a gap smaller than the separation distance should be included in the same occurrence. Different occurrences may overlap if their foraging or drinking areas overlap.

Nests of this species are difficult to detect (Kingery 1998). Likely most breeding occurrences will be represented by relatively few nesting pairs.

This species exhibits substantial fidelity to breeding area; in Colorado, mean distances between adult capture sites between years: female 20.8 kilometers (95% CI = 18.9-22.7 kilometers), male 16.0 kilometers (95% CI = 14.3-17.7 kilometers, Keppie and Braun 2000).

Home ranges variable: in the Oregon Coast Range, varied from 314 to 180,800 hectares (mean 11,121 hectares +/- 24,298 SD, Leonard 1998).

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively very small home range of 1000 hectares.
Date: 05Dec2001
Author: Cannings, S.

Use Class: Nonbreeding
Subtype(s): Mineral site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of recurring presence of wintering individuals or flocks outside their breeding area (including historical); and potential recurring presence at a given location. Occurrences should be locations where the species is resident for some time during the appropriate season; it is preferable to have observations documenting presence of at least 25 individuals over at least 20 days annually. Be cautious about creating EOs for observations that may represent single events.
Separation Barriers: None.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Separation distances for this highly mobile bird are set such that occurrences are of practical size for conservation purposes; occurrences do not necessarily represent demographically distinct populations.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 3.5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a conservatively very small home range of 1000 hectares.
Date: 17Apr2002
Author: Cannings, S.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
Management Information Edition Date: 08Dec2000
Management Information Edition Author: PAIGE, C.
Management Information Acknowledgments: Funding for the preparation of this abstract was made possible by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Dec2000
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): HAMMERSON, G., REVISED BY C. PAIGE

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. [as modified by subsequent supplements and corrections published in The Auk]. Also available online: http://www.aou.org/.

  • American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2003. Forty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 120(3):923-931.

  • Andrews, R. R. and R. R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver. 442 pp.

  • Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum Natural History xxxviii + 442 pp.

  • Baicich, P. J., and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. Second edition. Academic Press, New York.

  • Bent, A.C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 162. Washington, DC.

  • Bent, A.C. 1932. Life histories of North American gallinaceous birds. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 162. Washington, DC. (PAGES??)

  • BirdLife International. 2004b. Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

  • Bottorff, J. 2007. Managing Pacific Northwest forests for Band-tailed Pigeons. Woodland Fish and Wildlife Project Publication, Washington State University Extension, Pullman, WA.

  • Braun, C. E. 1972. Movements and hunting mortality of Colorado band-tailed pigeons. Trans. 37th North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf.:326-334.

  • Braun, C. E. 1973. Distribution and habits of band-tailed pigeon in Colorado. Proceedings of the Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissions 53:336-344.

  • Braun, C. E. 1976. Methods for locating, trapping and banding band-tailed pigeons in Colorado. Colorado Div. Wildl. Spec. Rep. 39. vi + 20 pp.

  • Braun, C. E. 1994. Band-tailed Pigeon. Chapter 5, Pp. 61-74 IN T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun, eds. Migratory shore and upland game bird management in North America. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

  • Braun, C. E., et al. 1975. Results of the Four Corners cooperative band-tailed pigeon investigation. USFWS Resource Publ. 126:1-20.

  • Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, and M. C. McNall. 1990b. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 2. Nonpasserines: diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C. 636 pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and G.E.J. Smith 1997. The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 3, Passerines: Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press in cooperation with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 700pp.

  • Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia Vol. 2: Nonpasserines: Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, BC.

  • Carey, A.B., M.M. Hardt, S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1991. Spring bird communities in the Oregon Coast Range. Pages 123-142 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff, technical coordinators. Wildlife and Vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285, Portland, OR.

  • Carter, M., C. Hunter, D. Pashley, and D. Petit. 1998. The Watch List. Bird Conservation, Summer 1998:10.

  • Carter, M., G. Fenwick, C. Hunter, D. Pashley, D. Petit, J. Price, and J. Trapp. 1996. Watchlist 1996: For the future. Field Notes 50(3):238-240.

  • Casazza, M. L., J. L. Yee, M. R. Miller, D. L. Orthmeyer, D. Yparraguirre, and R. L. Jarvis. 2000. Development of reliable population indices for band-tailed pigeons. Final report. Webless Migratory game Bird Research Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon, CA.

  • Curtis, P. D., C. E. Braun, and R. A. Ryder. 1983. Wing markers: visibility, wear, and effects on survival of band-tailed pigeons. Journal of Field Ornithology 54:381-386.

  • Curtis, P. D., and C. E. Braun. 1983a. Recommendations for establishment and placement of bait sites for counting band-tailed pigeons. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:364-366.

  • Curtis, P. D., and C. E. Braun. 1983b. Radiotelemetry location of nesting band-tailed pigeons in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 95:464-466.

  • Dexter, C. 1998. Band-tailed pigeon. Pages 198-199 in: H. E. Kingery, editor. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.

  • Division of Natural Resources, Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department. 1995. Endangered Species List for The Navajo Nation.

  • Downes, C.M., and B.T. Collins. 2007. Canadian Bird Trends Web site Version 2.2. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3.

  • Dunn, E. H., C. M. Downes, and B. T. Collins. 2000. The Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-1998. Canadian Wildlife Service Progress Notes No. 216. 40 pp.

  • Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016y. Management Plan for the Band-tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. iii + 14 pp.

  • Four Corners Band-tailed Pigeon Subcommittee. 2000. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Four Corners population of band-tailed pigeons. Draft. Western Migratory Upland Game Bird Technical Committee. C/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

  • Gabrielson, I. N., and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State College.

  • Glover, F. A. 1953. A nesting study of the band-tailed pigeon in northwestern California. California Fish and Game 39:397-407.

  • Godfrey, W. E. 1986. The birds of Canada. Revised edition. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 596 pp. + plates.

  • Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa. 428 pp.

  • Goodwin, D. 1983. Pigeons and doves of the world. Third edition. British Museum (Natural History), London, and Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. 363 pp. [496 pp.?]

  • Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific coast avifauna No. 27. Cooper Ornithological Club of California, Santa Clara California. 608 p.

  • Grinnell, J., and A. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna Number 27, Cooper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California.

  • Gutierrez, R. J., C. E. Braun, and T. P. Zapatka. 1975. Reproductive biology of the band-tailed pigeon in Colorado and New Mexico. Auk 92:665-677.

  • Hagar, D. C. 1960. The interrelationships of logging, birds, and timber regeneration in the Douglas-fir region of northwestern California. Ecology 41:116-125.

  • Hall, L. S., M. L. Morrison, and W. B. Block. 1997. Songbird status and roles. Pp. 69-88 in W. M. Block and D. M. Finch, technical editors. Songbird ecology in southwestern ponderosa pine forests: a literature review. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-GTR-292, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

  • Harrison, C. 1978. A Field Guide to the Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Collins, Cleveland, Ohio.

  • Hilty, S.L. and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 836 pp.

  • Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A guide to the birds of Mexico and northern Central America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

  • Hutto, R. L. 1992. Habitat distribution of migratory landbird species in western Mexico. Pp. 221-239 in J. M. Hagan and D. W. Johnston, eds. Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

  • Jackman, S. M., and J. M. Scott. 1975. Literature review of twenty three selected forest birds of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service Region 6, Portland, OR. 382pp.

  • Jarvis, R. L., and M. F. Passmore. 1992. Ecology of band-tailed pigeons in Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Report 6. 38pp.

  • Jeffrey, R. G. 1977. Band-tailed Pigeon (COLUMBA FASCIATA). Pp. 212-245 IN G. C. Sanderson, ed. Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB.

  • Jeffrey, R. G. 1989. The band-tailed pigeon: distribution, effects of harvest, regulations, mortality rates, and habits, 1968-1979. Final report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

  • Johnson, K. P., S. de Kort, K. Dinwoodey, A. C. Mateman, C. ten Cate, C. M. Lessells, and Dale H. Clayton. 2001. A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera STREPTOPELIA and COLUMBA. Auk 118:874-887.

  • Kautz, J. E. and C. E. Braun. 2000. Feasibility of estimating band-tailed pigeon population parameters using capture-recapture. Pp. 1-14 IN Studies of band-tailed pigeons. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Special Report Number 75.

  • Keppie, D. M. and C. E. Braun. 2000. Band-tailed Pigeon (COLUMBA FASCIATA). IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

  • Keppie, D. M. and C. E. Braun. 2000. Band-tailed Pigeon (COLUMBA FASCIATA). No. 530 In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 28 pp.

  • Kilgore, B.M. 1971. Response of breeding bird populations to habitat changes in a giant sequoia forest. American Midland Naturalist 85:135-152.

  • Kingery, H. E., editor. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 636 pp.

  • LaRue, C.T. 1994. Birds of northern Black Mesa, Navajo County, Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 54(1):1-63.

  • Leonard, J. P. 1998. Nesting and foraging ecology of band-tailed pigeons in western Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

  • Manuwal, D. A. 1991. Spring bird communities in the southern Washington Cascade Range. Pages 161-174 IN L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, A. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, technical coordinators. Wildlife and Vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285, Portland, OR.

  • March, G. L., and M. F. S. Sadlier. 1975. Studies on the band-tailed pigeon (COLUMBA FASCIATA) in British Columbia. II. Food resources and mineral-graveling activity. Syesis 5:279-284.

  • Marcot, B. G. 1984. Habitat relationships of birds and young-growth Douglas-fir in northwestern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

  • Meyer de Schauensee, R., and W. H. Phelps, Jr. 1978. A guide to the birds of Venezuela. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 528pp.

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918, Ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755 (1918) (current version at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712).

  • Munro, J.A., and I.McT. Cowan. 1947. A review of the bird fauna of British Columbia. B.C. Prov. Mus. Spec. Publ. No. 2, Victoria.

  • Neff, J. A. 1947. Habits, food, and economic status of the band-tailed pigeon. North American Fauna 58:1-76.

  • Neff, J.A. 1947. Habits, food, and economic status of the band-tailed pigeon. N. Amer. Fauna 58:1-76.

  • Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin.

  • Olson, S. T. 1974. Bandtailed pigeons in southeast Alaska. Murrelet 55:27.

  • Parker III, T. A., D. F. Stotz, and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Ecological and distributional databases for neotropical birds. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Pashley, D. N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. P. Ford, W. C. Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight: Conservation of the land birds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.

  • Pederson, J. C. and D. H. Nish. 1975. The Band-tailed Pigeon in Utah. Utah State. Dep. Nat. Resour. Publ. 75-1.

  • Peeters, H. J. 1962. Nuptial behavior of the band-tailed pigeon in the San Francisco Bay Area. Condor 64:445-470.

  • Raphael, M. G., K. V. Rosenberg, and B. G. Marcot. 1988. Large-scale changes in bird populations of Douglas-fir forests, northwestern California. Bird Conservation 3:63-83.

  • Rappole, J. H., E. S. Morton, T. E. Lovejoy III, and J. L. Rous. 1995. Nearctic avian migrants in the Neotropics: Maps, Appendices, and Bibliography (Second edition). Conservation and Research Center, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, Virginia. 324 pp.

  • Reynolds, R.T., et.al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Fort Collins, CO. 90 p.

  • Ridgely, R. S. 2002. Distribution maps of South American birds. Unpublished.

  • Ridgely, R. S. and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Panama. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

  • Ridgely, R. S., and J. A. Gwynne, Jr. 1989. A guide to the birds of Panama with Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Second edition. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 534 pp.

  • Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. 2007. Land-bird Population Estimation Database. Online at http://www.rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/query.aspx

  • Rosenberg, K.V., and M.G. Raphael. 1986. Effects of forest fragmentation on vertebrates in douglas-fir forests. Pp. 263-272. In: Verner, J., M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph (eds.). Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

  • Russell, S. M. and G. Monson. 1998. The birds of Sonora. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

  • Sanders, T. A. 1999. Habitat availability, dietary mineral supplement, and measuring abundance of band-tailed pigeons in western Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

  • Sanders, T. A. and R. L. Jarvis. 2000. Do band-tailed pigeons seek a calcium supplement at mineral sites? Condor 102:855-863.

  • Sanders, T.A., and R.L. Jarvis. 2000. Do band-tailed pigeons seek a calcium supplement at mineral sites? Condor 102:855-863.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available at: http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

  • Schroeder, M. A. and C. E. Braun. 1993. Movement and philopatry of band-tailed pigeons captured in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:103-112.

  • Stiles, F. G. and A. F. Skutch. 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 511 pp.

  • Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 22 July 1996. Migratory bird hunting; proposed frameworks for early-season migratory bird hunting regulations. Federal Register

  • USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2006. North American Breeding Bird Survey Internet data set. Available online at: (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/retrieval/).

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1999. State of Washington 1999 game status and trend report. Wildlife Management Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 195pp.

  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1999. State of Washington 1999 game status and trend report. Wildlife Management Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 195pp.

  • Western Migratory Upland Game Bird Technical Committee. 1994. Pacific flyway management plan for the Pacific coast population of band-tailed pigeons. Western Migratory Upland Game Bird Technical Committee, Pacific Flyway Council. C/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

  • White, J. A., and C. E. Braun. 1978. Age and sex determination of juvenile Band-tailed Pigeons. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:564-569.

  • Zook, J. L. 2002. Distribution maps of the birds of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. Unpublished.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.