As both a learning photographer and biologist in training I would like to give my two cents.

I do not argue the fact that mist netting and banding birds causes stress and to a much lesser extent mortality. That being said, I think that the information gained by properly banding birds is extremely important. Much of the avian information that we have now is from these type of studies and will continue to provide unknown information to scientists as well as photographers and the public.

As far as the publishing process is concerned. Not all (or even most) scientists are out to get there name on a publication or get a thesis published. The main reason for publication is to let the community have access to the information obtained in a study. This allows researchers to keep from doing unnecessary studies (repetitive identical studies) which in the long run reduces impact on the study organism. Lumping scientist in the "want to get published" category is as bad as people lumping photographers into the disturbing criminals category. This process is to spread knowledge, not to obtain a name on a paper for fame.

As a photographer, I do not get the feeling that we are looked upon as criminals for the most part. Some individuals (usually the most vocal) may feel that we are intrusive on critters, but in general I feel welcomed in most places that I have been. I am very new to the photography gig and have not been to many of the high traffic areas that many other photographers visit. The feeling toward photographers may be different there, but my guess is that this was caused by a few bad apples. In general I think it is a few of the managers got a bad taste in their mouths from just a few bad photographers.

To wrap it up, I think that mist netting and banding is very valuable to gain knowledge on the avian world. The benefit to both biologist, photographers, and future generations is hard to put a price on.