Reply to the comment by Franklin et al. on “Are survival rates for northern spotted owls biased?”Appears in Can. J. Zool. 83: 1386–1390.

We reply to Franklin et al.’s critique of our recent work in which we computed survival for northern spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis caurina (Merriam, 1898)) from sites in western Oregon and northern California based on 197 radio-collared owls. Several methods gave similar results and we noted that our estimated survival rates might be closer to the true value than those derived from mark–recapture studies. We included an errant reference to Anthony et al. (Wildl. Monogr. No. 163, pp. 1–47 (2006)) in comments about bias in prior estimates of survival and hence of λ, a mistake for which we published an erratum. In spite of our erratum, Franklin et al. correct our presumed misunderstanding of the re-parameterized Jolly–Seber methods used in the article by Anthony et al. We never intended our comments to refer to the article by Anthony et al. The commentary also states that we overestimated survival because birds that left the study area might actually have died simultaneously with radio-collar destruction. However, in our earlier paper, we stated quite clearly that the fate of virtually every bird was accounted for by tracking them down if they left the study area or until the body was found if dead. They secondarily state that birds that emigrated might have a higher mortality rate and cited as evidence a study based on four owls. We do not consider that study sufficient to determine whether mortality rates for emigrating owls may be elevated. We also dispute several other criticisms but concur with them that several issues related to owl demography could benefit from further study.