"When you say "WILL result in injury and mortality" that is a strong statement. Most birds that are banded live long healthy lives. The injury and mortality is an occasional occurrence. What scientist are asking if the super close shots are necessary?"

Of course it is a strong statement, and it is a true statement! You just said "most birds" and you also said "occasional occurrence". Haven't you just admitted that banding "will result in injury and mortality"?

What the scientist asks: "is a super close shot necessary"?

What the photographer says: compare the "disturbance" of the birds from a super close shot with the injuries and deaths caused from banding. Which is worse?

Earlier you said, and I have intentionally dealt with this secondly:

"I believe that it should be important to all people that care about the future of avian populations. The general taxpayer probably does not care, but that is one reason the birds are in trouble in the first place."

You believe it "should be"; isn't that typical of scientists in that they set themselves up as the standard that others must follow and if the general public doesn't like what the scientist advocates - too bad - it is being done in the name of science!

"I did assume that people that were opposed to banding did know what the banding was for. My apologies. Information that is obtained includes movement/migration patterns, population trends, dispersal of young, survival, sex ratios, breeding success, growth rates, body condition over time, and distribution of species to name the major ones. I believe that this information is vital in protecting avian populations from problems (most caused by man). If we know nothing about the birds we love so much then how do we protect them or even manage areas for them."

I am being the Devil's Advocate: Who loves the birds so much; the general public or a tiny minority of society? The general public couldn't give a stuff about all of the birds in general. The general public would say spend the money on matters directly related to man; put more money into medical research; screw the birds.

I am not saying the general public is right; however, this is a democracy, and the general public should be able to decide how their tax dollars are spent.

Thanks for pointing out one of the posts against banding.

Frankly, I am not against banding nor do I believe that most of the photographers are against banding.

The one thing you left out is that the study of the birds and other creatures is really the study of how healthy an area is for Man. If the birds or frogs or other creatures are dying off we need to know why because there might be a problem that in addition to affecting the creatures might affect Man.

At the end of the day I believe that all the photographers are saying to the scientists and those members of the general public that support the scientists is that all of the activities of the photographers combined result in substantially less stress to the avian population or any animal population than the activities of the scientists (and the bird watchers).

And yes, if you want to count the same birds over and over and over, then I want to get close up images of the same birds over and over and over, and my doing so will - unlike your banding and other study techniques - not result in either injuries or mortalities to the extent of the scientific activities.

To apply a very appropriate saying: What is good for the goose is good for the gander!