Mist Netting & Bird Banding; Right or Wrong?

[Arthur Morris]

Having photographed birds for more than a quarter century, I have seen bird photographers accused of every crime under the sun. That bird looked at you. You are disturbing it. Your images have inspired folks to protect the environment, save sensitive areas, get folks inspired to open their wallets. Who cares? You once disturbed a bird by walking towards it with your lens.

I have always thought is odd that biologists have been and are given a free pass. Years ago I met--at Jamaica Bay WR, Queens, NY-- John G. Williams, curator or ornithology at the British Museum in Nairobi, and author or co-author of "The Birds of East Africa." A real scientist. (I just checked: 1913-1997.) Anyway, he shared the following with me: "I have skinned thousands of birds caught in mist nets. Every single one of them, from tiny passerines to large raptors, had bruises on their breasts that matched the pattern of the net that they struck at high speed." A small percentage of birds caught in mist nets die upon impact and still others perish or are injured while being removed or afterwards.

At Cape May NJ, the folks who band raptors stick the birds in various cans using tennis ball cans for birds like Cooper's Hawk. Well, one young intern was doing a program at the state park, grabbed a Coop in a can, took it out, and was dismayed to find that it was dead. He composed himself, grabbed another tennis ball can, took out another dead Coop, and ran away crying.

Most folks who see a lot of shorebirds wind up seeing a few banded birds, especially Red Knots. And there are lots of banded gulls and terns out there too. Back to the shorebirds. I have seen Sanderling limping in obvious discomfort, constantly picking at their bands with their bills. Reports of banded birds in distress are as common as hen's teeth.

At Bonaventure, the biologists have a neat way of capturing the gannets while they are incubating. They have a wire noose on the end of a long pole. They maneuver the noose around the neck of the gannet and then yank the bird onto the viewing deck. Nice work, but not if you are a gannet.

And if you want to see disturbance, visit a colony or rookery being studied by scientists. Watch the birds fly off in a constant panic as researchers walk through the colonies, weighing eggs, grabbing chicks, trapping adults, weighing, measuring and marking every thing in sight. And the main purpose of all of this mist netting, banding, trapping, and disturbance? In many cases the driving force is getting ones name on a research paper, published article, or thesis.

Artie, don't you realize all the good that these scientists and biologists are doing, saving this and that species, learning about the natural world? What's wrong with you? How dare you criticize them.

I understand all of that. I just do not like being told, "That bird looked at you. You are disturbing it. You are a criminal. All bird photographers are criminals."

Man, you gotta love it.

I am wondering how the biologists, and there are at least a few here at BPN, feel about all of the injuries and disturbance wrought by scientists and students looking to get their names on a research paper. Please do chime in.

If anyone else knows the details of disturbance of colonies or injuries to birds caused by biologists, please feel free to contribute that information.

 

[Jay Gould]

Artie, this has been online all day and not one comment - I will keep you company.

"I just do not like being told, "That bird looked at you. You are disturbing it. You are a criminal. All bird photographers are criminals.""

Has someone recently said this to you? Whom and where? Did you appropriately respond to the person, or were you unfortunately tactful?

 

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, this has been online all day and not one comment - I will keep you company.
"I just do not like being told, "That bird looked at you. You are disturbing it. You are a criminal. All bird photographers are criminals."" Has someone recently said this to you? Whom and where? Did you appropriately respond to the person, or were you unfortunately tactful?

Hi Jay, I appreciate your company. I sort of expected to get castigated for this post, and in no way did I expect indifference.

As regular BAA Bulletin readers know, I (along with my group) was told by the refuge biologist (at a mandatory--for photography groups only as far as I know) session, "If a Snow Goose raises its head to look at you, you are disturbing it." This, at a refuge where hunting is allowed.

As a lover of what is (www.thework.com), I was quite tactful and lots of good came out of the meeting. (Do a search for the Bosque Volunteer Project in the Bulletin Archives.)

I added the "criminal" part as a comment on the continuting war against (nature) photographers. If you are not aware of this conflict, then you must live in the boonies or have your head in the sand. Here are just a few: Ding Darling closed on Fridays and open only at 7:30 am daily regardless of the time of sunrise partly to give the birds a break from photographers and--according to a volunteer--partly as punishment. Well, as they have managed the birds away from the roads it is no big deal now, and a tram only poliy is coming soon.

Bosque: a threat to restrict visitors to their vehicles.

Fort DeSoto Park, where windsurfers often disturb large flocks of shorebirds, the closing of The Point as a nesting area during the nesting season only three years ago. Only one bird--an oystercatcher--nested successfully in the area and lost its chicks because of human disturbance--North Beach Lagoon is one of the premier beaches in the US. Least Terns and skimmers attempt to nest at the point most years, but never succeed as there are simply too many people in the area which in addition, is subject to storm flooding every spring. With virtually zero success one might expect that The Point would be reopened. Instead, it has been closed permanently year round.

At a NWR in northern Missouri-I forget the name, all visitors MUST be off the tour roads by sunset. When I asked the refuge manager why, he stated that it was to protect the integrity of the refuge. Strange, as there are numerous hunting clubs on the eastern border of the refuge where the geese are shot at dawn each day.

The reconstructed fence and the phony signs at the Cave Store Cliffs in LaJolla, the premier place in the world to photograph breeding plumage Pacific Brown Pelicans.

Biolgists railing at photographers for approaching a shorebird nest too closely while they are dragging the tundra with ropes, handling the chicks and eggs, and otherwise causing havoc.

The list goes on and on. The fact is that most refuge managers view all nature photogphers more as criminals than as allies.

I would love to hear from others, especially from the biologists. Hey, I have often stated that one team of researchers in a tern colony causes more disturbance on a single day than all US bird photographers combined in a year.

 

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I would give biologists (I am not one) the benefit of the doubt that they really try to help birds in the bigger picture. When it comes to banding, I don't think that one little ring per leg if properly done causes leg injuries. Canadian researchers put big yellow neck bands on adult female snow geese that supposedly don't have a negative impact on their life expectancy. That may be true but I don't know if the geese are comfortable not being able to get rid of it. Last year I saw red knots with 2-3 rings and even little flags on each leg. Particularly the flags are so big that I have a hard time imagining they don't cause discomfort. The numerous little rings seem somewhat outdated to me. Isn't this what computer databases are for?

 

[Nonda Surratt]

Not birds but mammals. Some biologists came to a large rehab facility and the goal was to weigh and draw blood on some young fox squirrels ready for releases. Being ready for release means they want nothing to do with humans. The day was hot, in the 90's, in the name of science (which absolves much it seems) they chased those squirrels around the pre-release pen, all but 2 died from heat exhaustion and stress. Believe it or not that is even in some regs that mammals should be weighed before release! If I can pick up any mammal it isn't ready for release...Biologists at work here

BUT! While there are way too many bio folks that really don't have a clue about stress, can't paint them all with the same bad brush, just like can happen with photographers. I'm on the Mammal-L list which is operated out of the Smithsonian and those mammalogists jump though hoops to keep stress and disturbance to a minimum.

Pushing any wild off a nest is disturbance, my thoughts, but to say that when one looks at you you have disturbed it is over the top, if they are that bugged they will fly, run off and most times not far. ALL wilds have a comfort zone and it is different for each individual, observation, common sense and care are key here. Some wilds are more easily stressed than others, Coops are really high on the stress list as far as being handled, Screech owls not so much. (examples from rehab) Snow geese, we get a couple migrating though here every year, are much calmer about humans than Wood ducks. the SG look at you and then tuck their head under a wing and go back to resting, W-d's have already left the building.

 

[Nonda Surratt]

Axel,

Couple years ago I was seeing CG's coming though with several different colored neck bands so I called the head bird guy at division. He said "there are so many different colored neck bands for CG's we don't even try and keep track anymore.

 

[Don Thompson]

Artie, your comments regarding biologist remind me of Al Gore traveling the world in a private jet and living in a huge home while he condemns me and my carbon footprint for driving an SUV or use incandescent light bulbs. Because they think they are on the correct side of the issue, they are somehow free to do whatever they like, the end justifies the means.

I agree with your comments regarding the war against nature photographers. It bothers me when groups like The Nature Conservancy, which I mostly agree with their purpose, ask me for monetary support then they close off some of the properties they buy with the money I donate. If they continue to close off these areas they will loose valuable support. I do understand protecting the wildlife, but if they restrict access to the point where it can no longer be enjoyed by those who pay to protect them (Ding Darling), they will loose that support. I think the attitude will become, "if I can't visit Ding Darling and enjoy it, then why do I care if it exist". It will become the exclusive domain of the biologist and care takers.

I hope I am making sense and not just rambling.

 

[Arthur Morris]

I understand what you are saying Axel. I just wish that folks would give photographers that same benefit of the doubt. Several times in my 25 years I have been accused, tried, and hung without ever being able to either defend myself or confront my accusers, all the while biologists get a free pass.

 

[chad anderson]

Wow, I did't know about all this biologist-photographer tension. Biologists and photographers are the same IMO. Some do it right, and some do it wrong. But generally they have the same mission- to promote, protect and preserve the wonder of the natural resources. There is one difference I can think of though. Biologist have a degree of oversight to their actions, such as section 7 and special use permitting. Its really ashame to see this "rift" among communities that should be staunch allies!

Can't we all just get along!

As far as photographers not getting the benefit of the doubt...well I've never seen it. I have worked for four well-known agencies in Florida and I have never heard a land manager or biologist say "man we really got to get these photographers out of here, they are really messing thing up". But I have to admit, going to places like Yellowstone, you can be really ashmed of photographers as you see them running down the street by the hundereds chasing fleeing wildlife.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Chad, Glad to see you sharing your thoughts here. As far as some biologists doing it right, and some doing it wrong, that overlooks the fact that mist netting injures and kills lots of birds each year whether it is done right or wrong. And I do not understand how having this or that permit gives anyone the right to injure and kill birds.

Of course there are photographers whom give us all a bad name as there are in any group. And yes, I am with you in being quite ashamed of that small group.

When you commented on my "Little Dutch Boy" post, you asked, "I guess the main question is this: if there is even the slightest possibility that even a word of what decades of research has said is possibly applicable to egrets, is it really worth the risk to get a close up?

I would like to ask you this: As it is a fact that banding birds injures and kills at least a small percentage of the birds being studied, is it really worth the injury to and death of the very birds that biologists are studying (so that they can get their name on a research paper or publish their thesis)?

 

[Arthur Morris]

ps: In that same thread, you wrote, "Wow looks like I missed a good debate after my comments. I dont really have much else to say except for I am glad a dialog has been started on the issue!" Yet here you ask, "Can't we all just get along! "

All that I intended to do here was start a dialogue on an important issue.

I realize that nature photographers and biologists need to be on the same team. And I hope that this thread develops so that that comes to pass.

 

[Rich Steel]

Hi Artie

Our local bird groups here seem to be banding crazy. At some sites its not worth bothering visiting with the camera now as every bird has a ring on its leg. I have seen plenty of waders with damaged ringed legs. How much value is gained from ringing data except saying this bird travelled from A to B so many times I have to wonder, surely most of that information is now known. Surely if all the money and time that is put in to ringing studies was actually directed towards habitat development and protection the birds would be better off. One observation I have made is that birds that have been through the ringing process always seem more approachable which in itself can be frustrating.

There is a bit of war going on the in the UK between birdwatchers and photographers which has become particularly acute this winter. Some of the antics of the bird watchers and a minority of photographers defies belief which is why I rarely go after rare birds as it is a usually a bit of a depressing affair. Part of the probelm I believe has developed with spotting scopes and most bird watcher believe there is no need to get with 1/2 a mile of a bird and if you are then your disturbing it. A good example is one of our local beaches that waders use to roost has effectively has now become out of bounds to photographers this winter, although the dogwalkers are allowed to continue. I visited this particular beach earlier in the winter and lay down about 100 yards away from a group of knot and sanderling. The birds were not bothered by my presence and I waited for them to move along the tide line towards me. About 10 minutes later I have two voluntary wardens tapping me on the shoulder and asking me to vacate the beach for disturbing the birds. Let me point out at this stage as you all know its not in the photographers interest to scare off what they are trying to photograph and the welfare of the subject should always the number 1 priority. As I defended my actions, although admittedly without success, a woman came strolling along the beach with two dogs which put the whole flock up. Surely the wardens would have better spent their time talking to the dog walker than picking on the photographer. Subequent to this I sent a photo of feeding knot to the head warden indicating that it was at very close range and would not have continued feeding it it was stressed or concerned by my presence.

In fact another local beach where I can still go, I will often lie in wait for the tide to bring the birds into range only to have a dog run across my view just as the birds are where I want them. When its not dogs then its the kite surfers.

The situations seems to be getting worse as there seem to be more and more photographers appearing who have bought the kit but don't have a clue about fieldcraft and will go to any lengths to try and get a photo and it is generally these people that seem to be giving photographer the bad name.

I will climb down off my soapbox now.

Cheers

Rich

 

[Roger Clark]

In many cases the driving force is getting ones name on a research paper, published article, or thesis.

OK, as a scientist I'll object.

But first, a (funny) true story.
I was working in a National Park (I'm not going to give names) on geologic mapping and cryptobiotic soils mapping. I was being given a tour by the local biologist. Jokingly, I said we study rocks because they don't change much with time. The biologist responds: "I study plants because they don't move fast. Those researchers who study animals really have it tough!"

Now back to Art's quote above. I feel this is as uniformed and inflammatory as Art's concern over the perception of photographers by the biologists he is complaining about. Just as in any field there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists did not go into science for fame or fortune. Most are very passionate about their research, and their goal is not simply to put their name on a research paper. Their goal is in general to find something interesting that will make a difference in the world. To accomplish that, you must publish the results, because after all, if you do not, then there will be no good coming out of it. Publishing is necessary, but to the scientist, the goal is the knowledge and insight found by a particular study, and to see that knowledge used to further understanding.

Having said that, there are always researchers who have an agenda. Often it is to conduct research that furthers their pet theory or life goal. I have met a fair number of these people. They are not in my opinion top researchers, although many do very good work. In one National Park which had a problem my group could help monitor and solve, the attitude was (probably still is) it's our park and if we could put up a fence and keep everyone out, the park would finally be protected. I'm still waiting for the research permit, even though it has been over 10 years with neither a granting or denial of the permit. But in other parks, the researchers are very accommodating and great people to work with.

The point is that there are "people with attitude" in every walk of life, including photographers, researchers, and the general public. Photographers get a bad name by the acts of a few, whether it be the uninformed amateur photographer or the pro who does something bad. Like the guy who cut down a tree after he photographed a well known scene because he didn't want anyone else to take that picture (like it hadn't been photographed a million times before). Incidents like that make those who manage any region skeptical of other photographers.

So Art, I would suggest not damming researchers in general and when you see one practicing poor methodology, use your photographic skills to record the practice and use the images to 1) get the practice changed, and/or 2) the people doing it retrained or fired. (Remember those video modes on the new cameras.)

Somewhere I have a paragraph from the National Park Service about the Grand Canyon National Park regarding the banning of cars. It goes something like this:

People are at a view point enjoying the view. A bus pulls up and a bunch of people get out crowding the viewpoint. The bus keeps its engine running and and the diesel fumes and noise permeated the crowd, ruining the experience. So, we will ban cars. Now you have to take a bus.

Huh? What research led to that management decision? Research is not always acted upon by management in the way one might think. Similarly, if you feel a research practice is wrong, work to change it.

I've rambled enough.

 

[Daniel Cadieux]

There is a bit of war going on the in the UK between birdwatchers and photographers which has become particularly acute this winter. Some of the antics of the bird watchers and a minority of photographers defies belief which is why I rarely go after rare birds as it is a usually a bit of a depressing affair. Part of the probelm I believe has developed with spotting scopes and most bird watcher believe there is no need to get with 1/2 a mile of a bird and if you are then your disturbing it.

Hi Rich, from the quote above you can substitute "UK" for "Canada" (and probably most any other place) and you have the same situation here.

I don't want to pick on all birders, as there are some that I consider friends and are not as overly protective or reactive as the others. There is often a big public brou-ha-ha done by birding groups about baiting (doesn't matter if it's done in moderation or respectfully), or if a photographer is within "1/2 mile" of any bird, but when a well known owl's nest suffers an unfortunate casualty due to banding efforts no word is heard of it anywhere...I guess it's OK in the name of "study"!! Same goes for recorded calls. Try to lure a bird using tapes when birders are present...good luck! But for them it's OK when doing bird counts or doing a birding tours.

Biologists and photographers are the same IMO. Some do it right, and some do it wrong. But generally they have the same mission- to promote, protect and preserve the wonder of the natural resources.

I agree with the above quote by Chad, but the difference is the way we are perceived and the reactions generated by other groups (again, most often birders - especially the hardcore ones). I guess I'm trying to say is that it seems there is generally more tension between birders/photographers then there is between biologists/photographers

Like Artie says, I wish we were all given the same benefit of the doubt...

 

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Rich, Roger, and Daniel for sharing your thoughts. Roger, you are either missing my major point or I am not doing a very good job of communicating it so I shall try again. Mist netting and banding cause injury and mortality. About that there is no doubt. Mist neting and banding is not "poor methodology". Both are accepted standard practices in avian research.

Bird photographers who get "too close" (according to those who fail to realize is that the last thing a bird photographer wants if for the subject to fly away) or who "may cause harm" by feeding herons, egrets, gulls and pelicans that have become habituated to taking bait from fisherman for 10 decades are routinely castigated by birders, biologists, and refuge managers.

All that I am asking is why the double standard? I have nothing against biologists and realize that many of them are out to do good. For little pay. And that includes my two sons-in-law.

 

[Trey Barron]

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.

 

[Trey Barron]

Last year I saw red knots with 2-3 rings and even little flags on each leg. Particularly the flags are so big that I have a hard time imagining they don't cause discomfort. The numerous little rings seem somewhat outdated to me. Isn't this what computer databases are for?

Axel, this is used to identify individuals in populations that are generally in trouble. Using 2-3 bands allows the identification of an individual bird without being recaptured and thus reducing stress. The flags may be a little crazy though.

 

[Lance Peters]

Hi Artie - I have been quietly following this and the other thread about baiting. Everyone has their own view on what is right or wrong to them based upon their personal ethics.

As the dominant species on this planet we interact with our surroundings everyday, a large percentage of us try do go about our lives with minimal impact on our enviroment/others.
From what I am reading above they are saying Bird photographers cause birds stress - we as the dominant species on this planet and have stresses in our lives everyday - yes it can kill us - but it would need to be prolonged and extreme. Our species often loose yougsters before they fledge for a variety of reasons - Alcohol/Cars/SIDS the list goes on - are we banning cars or alcohol etc etc.


I think there are bigger issues that could be adressed that would do more to help preserve our wildlife than worrying about the photographer that disturbs or feeds a bird - we had a extreme heatwave here recently and all our wildlife was very distressed - we had birds literally pecking on the front door of our house - obviously distressed - we provided water for them to cool off in - more came - soon they were everywhere.

Did I do the wrong thing?? Did I cause them Further Stress?? Will they now arrive every day looking for water and die because they dont find any??

Nobody wins UNLESS we all win (And that doesnt mean just us Humans)

 

[Magnus Thornberg]

I agree with you Artie! At 100%! This discussion are going on in Sweden too! Biologists/birdwatchers are often accusing us to disturbed the birds! But they don’t complain when they using the images in books and other media!
I have noticed that raptors make the birds more afraid then me when I’m out in the field! Sometimes the birds fly away when i get to the photospot! But after 15-30 minutes they are back and almost use me as a viewpoint!

Sorry about my poor English!!!

/Magnus

 

[Arthur Morris]

Lance, Great stuff.

Magnus. Not to mention their banding activities that maim and kill birds on occasion or their studies at rookeries and colonies where rampant disturbance is the rule. Mate, where are you from, Sweden?