Mist Netting & Bird Banding; Right or Wrong?

[Lance Peters]

Common sense prevails in Australia at the moment at least - with my fav site ONLY accessible by photographers, no public access - at least the powers that be trust us photographers to do the right thing here in OZ.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Lance, Please bottle some of that and send it over here! I may consider moving Down Under.

 

[Jay Gould]

Good Mornin' Artie, don't you sleep OR do you have a BPN chip implant?

I forgot to add to this quickie - we are waitin' for you down under so that we can participate in one of your workshops. You bring the knowledge; we will identify the various areas to apply your knowledge - won't we Lance?!

We will even "shout you a brewsky" !

 

[christopher galeski]

Artie,I have always been against ringing,that what it is called over here in uk,I know of a bird ringer ,who is a official ringer for eastlancs,the local tv company made a film about him ringing,they went to a peragrine site near to were I live,the climber went down to the nest site,put the chicks in a bag,they wer lifted up,all the chicks were alive when they wer put in,when they took them out to ring them,one was dead,they did not show this or mention this in the film.I was told this by a wildlife officer for that area,off the record.thanks.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Good Mornin' Artie, don't you sleep OR do you have a BPN chip implant?

Actually, I am a morning person. Usually in bed by 9pm (or earlier) and then up at 4 or 4:30 am. I take a 20 minute nap most afternoons.

 

[Arthur Morris]

Artie,I have always been against ringing,that what it is called over here in uk,I know of a bird ringer ,who is a official ringer for eastlancs,the local tv company made a film about him ringing,they went to a peragrine site near to were I live,the climber went down to the nest site,put the chicks in a bag,they wer lifted up,all the chicks were alive when they wer put in,when they took them out to ring them,one was dead,they did not show this or mention this in the film.I was told this by a wildlife officer for that area,off the record.thanks.

From what I know, all bird banders are never keen to advertise the mishaps. In the book I mentioned above, the head raptor guy was pissed at the author for revealing (reporting is my choice of words there) on the pigeon jerking and the fact that some woman was watching the afore-mentioned pigeon jerking and had an animal rights fit. And they do not want anyone near their blinds lest they "disturb" the operation or could it be that they do not want anyone seeeing what goes on?

 

[christopher galeski]

Thanks Artie for starting this thread,I have always been against banding (RINGING) IN THE UK.They still ring birds here that they know every thing about,sowhy do they keep traping them to ring.Allit does is cause birds a lot of stress,and in some cases death.thanks.

 

[Magnus Thornberg]

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?

Yes i´m from the town Falun in Sweden!

/Magnus

 

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Magnus. Are you pals with my old student Brutus?

 

[Roger Clark]

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.

Art,
I was not objecting to your bringing up mist netting or banding issue, just calling researchers out to only get their name on papers.

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.

It is obvious that many people here feel strongly that mist netting and banding may do a lot of harm. If true, then the next step would be to document and expose the methods that are harmful and get them changed or banned.

Life is full of double standards, and you have made the first step in bringing the issue to a wider audience. Next would bring it to an even wider audience with evidence. For example, how many deaths and injuries in a typical operation? Real data are needed here from researchers. Your Kenya example will not help unless the researcher wrote that down somewhere, even in a letter. But then some might argue that those practices were different there and it is done better here in ____ (fill in your country). It won't be easy, but with some cooperative researchers, the problem might get exposed and fixed.

Changing perceptions will be harder. If photographers start documenting problems with research methods, the researchers really won't like photographers, and that could lead to more tensions and banning of photographers or closure of areas.

Different but related topic: why is the FAA considering making the reports of birds hitting planes secret? Apparently the incident database has over 100,000 events.

Roger

 

[Trey Barron]

Mr. Morris and others against banding,
Do you think that the information is valuable that is obtained from banding/ringing?

If so, how do you propose we obtain that information in a less obtrusive manner? It is very easy to point out the flaws with a method, and most methods are not perfect. The difficult thing to do is to come up with a better method and be a proponent of that.

 

[Jason Franke]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>

Mr. Morris and others against banding,
Do you think that the information is valuable that is obtained from banding/ringing?

If so, how do you propose we obtain that information in a less obtrusive manner? It is very easy to point out the flaws with a method, and most methods are not perfect. The difficult thing to do is to come up with a better method and be a proponent of that.

<u1></u1><o></o>
I can't speak for Artie or anyone else; but we're not the people to be asking how to come up with better ways to catch birds. Catching and banding birds isn’t our area of expertise, nor is designing and building nets or handling wild birds in the less stressful way. If you wanted a better lens for photographing birds, would you ask an ornithologist to build one?
<u1></u1>
It's certainly seems clear to me though, that the people that should be able to develop better techniques and technologies aren't, either because they feel the losses are acceptable or they don't care to. Either way I have to agree with Artie, it’s practically galling when I’m told I’m disturbing the birds when I’m doing everything I can not to. After all, if I scare the bird away or worse stress it to death; I’m certainly not going to get a natural image am I?

Moreover, I think that birds are a lot more resilient than we (scientist/environmentalist/refuge managers) seem to give them credit for, at least when they aren’t being physically molested or stuffed into a tennis ball tube. I’d point at the Pines Blvd. Bald Eagle nest. It’s less than 100 feet from a very busy road, with heavy truck and pedestrian traffic, a bus stop, a school and a post office all with in spitting distance. The Eagles weren't forced to choose that tree, and it's almost certainly not the only viable site in that part of the county, it’s likely not even the only viable site on that lot. Yet they're there and they seem, by the last accounts I've read at least, to be doing fine (even after idiots have trampled a path out to the tree and left their trash on the ground). That's not the only example either, the nesting Great Blues at Wakodahatchee don't appear to have any problems being <50 feet from a very busy boardwalk.<u1></u1>

Ultimately, I don’t know if we need to fix what the scientists are doing, and I’m not even sure we can. What I think we do need to fix is work on our own public image. This is something I find exceedingly bizarre too. We photographers are responsible in some way for the public image of almost everything else. Yet as a group, we seem to be perceived as terrorists (see recent legislation in <st1:country-region u5:st="on"><st1><st1:country-region u6:st="on"><st1><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>England</st1></st1:country-region></st1></st1:country-region></st1></st1:country-region>), perverts and destroyers of the very environment we want to capture and protect. I think if we can fix our problem, and maybe bring some light to the issues we feel birds face in the hands of the scientists, they can fix their own (or otherwise show that they aren’t as big of a problem as they seem).

This is ultimately, what I think bothers Artie so much, I know it’s what bothers me. Scientists are given a pass to go where they please and deliberately capture or kill birds (incidentally or not) while photographers are kept on the trail with the worst access (usually by design) during the worst light with little or no opportunity to do anything about it. All the while, we are being told we are destroying/hurting/killing the very thing we are trying to cause the least disturbance to in the first place. It only adds insult to injury, when you hear about some guy in a white coat pulling dead out of the tennis ball tubes they were stuffed in after the trauma of struggling in a net and yet nobody appears too bothered by that, it’s just the cost of doing science.<u1></u1> Of course, we/Artie are probably more bothered by it than we should be, because of the situation we’re put in to start with.<o></o>
<u4>
</u4> Do I sound bitter? Because I’m sure I am, and I’m neither old enough nor a photographer long enough to have been around for the “good old days” of unrestricted access to most refuges. Just looking at the current and proposed rules, and remembering your tax dollar is paying for this crap and your ability to use and enjoy it is being taken away should be enough.<u1></u1>

 

[Roy Priest]

IF you want to make a real change in the deaths of MILLIONS of birds urge governments and businesses of tower blocks to turn off their lights at night and make communication towers safer. http://tinyurl.com/cn5yto
It seems to me this thread is a red herring designed to move blame from photographers by disparaging others and is not needed.

 

[Jay Gould]

Mr. Morris and others against banding,
Do you think that the information is valuable that is obtained from banding/ringing?

If so, how do you propose we obtain that information in a less obtrusive manner? It is very easy to point out the flaws with a method, and most methods are not perfect. The difficult thing to do is to come up with a better method and be a proponent of that.

Trey, earlier you wrote:

"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."

I do not know if you read the Supplemental Feeding thread; however I asked you the following:

"[FONT=&quot]To whom is it important? A segment of our tax paying public that does not believe in animal research for medical reasons; do you think they believe you should band birds, count birds etc.?<o>"</o>[/FONT]

Trey, you also said regarding multiple bands:

"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."

Again in the Feeding Thread I commented:

"[FONT=&quot]Ah ha! If the scientists decide that a “population is in trouble” it is OK to engage in standard practices that WILL result in injury and mortality; however, if a photographer wants that super close shot then the scientist asks if it is necessary!"

NOW, let's go back to your initial question:

"[/FONT]Do you think that the information is valuable that is obtained from banding/ringing?"

I would suggest that your question assumes too much on your behalf and on behalf of your readers.

First, in asking the question in the manner in which you have, you want everyone to assume that the information is valuable and explain why it isn't.

Secondly, you have failed to identify "the informa- tion" you or anyone should evaluate as being or not being valuable.

Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about the value of banding and the information obtained from banding, please tell us what information you believe is obtained from banding, why you believe it is valuable, and to whom do you believe it is valuable.

You are asking different levels of photographers to provide you with their opinion whether the results of avian research is or isn't valuable.

Please provide a summary of the results of the research you consider valuable, and we will attempt to tell you whether - in our avian uneducated opinion - we also consider that result valuable and justifying banding.

Concluding, by the way, with your statement "others against banding", where in any of the posts did any of the posters specifically say they were against banding?
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT]

 

[Trey Barron]

"[FONT=&quot]To whom is it important? A segment of our tax paying public that does not believe in animal research for medical reasons; do you think they believe you should band birds, count birds etc.?<o>"</o>[/FONT]

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.


"[FONT=&quot]Ah ha! If the scientists decide that a “population is in trouble” it is OK to engage in standard practices that WILL result in injury and mortality; however, if a photographer wants that super close shot then the scientist asks if it is necessary!"

Who else is going to decide? The birds can not do it. 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?


NOW, let's go back to your initial question:

"[/FONT]Do you think that the information is valuable that is obtained from banding/ringing?"

I would suggest that your question assumes too much on your behalf and on behalf of your readers.

First, in asking the question in the manner in which you have, you want everyone to assume that the information is valuable and explain why it isn't.

I do not want everyone to assume that the information is valuable. I just want to know the opinions of the information. Do we need it or not?

Secondly, you have failed to identify "the informa- tion" you or anyone should evaluate as being or not being valuable.

Therefore, if you want to have a discussion about the value of banding and the information obtained from banding, please tell us what information you believe is obtained from banding, why you believe it is valuable, and to whom do you believe it is valuable.

You are asking different levels of photographers to provide you with their opinion whether the results of avian research is or isn't valuable.

Please provide a summary of the results of the research you consider valuable, and we will attempt to tell you whether - in our avian uneducated opinion - we also consider that result valuable and justifying banding.

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.

Concluding, by the way, with your statement "others against banding", where in any of the posts did any of the posters specifically say they were against banding?
[FONT=&quot]<o></o>[/FONT][/quote]
christopher galeski wrote "Thanks Artie for starting this thread,I have always been against banding (RINGING) IN THE UK.They still ring birds here that they know every thing about,sowhy do they keep traping them to ring.Allit does is cause birds a lot of stress,and in some cases death.thanks."

I am in know way am saying the system is perfect. I too wish there was a way to do this without causing stress to the birds. I think that overall, a breif stress from being captured, banded, and released is much less important to argue about than the real stresses that are being placed upon birds. Habitat loss, climate change, vehicle collisions, wind farms, building collisions are all having more of an impact on the birds than scientist or photographers. Do not forget that I am both.

 

[Jay Gould]

"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!

 

[Ed Erkes]

I really don't understand this thread at all. The two issues under discussion (photography of birds for fun and/or profit and netting/banding birds for research purposes) are totally unrelated IMO. Much useful information that has helped bird conservation has been gained from netting/ banding birds and, with newer advances such as radiotelemetry, even more useful info will be obtained. I've volunteered and assisted researchers banding birds for several years. Yes, the possibility of injury and death from the nets is small but real. Recaptured banded birds will sometimes show injuries to the legs from the bands, even amputations. But what in the world does that really have to do with bird photography? It seems as if you are saying: alright,I may sometimes disturb birds during photography, but I'm not doing anything nearly as bad as researchers. I don't see the connection. It's kind of like saying: ok, I may be throwing rocks and driving birds off the nests to photograph them in flight, but that's not nearly as bad as hunters who actually shoot and kill birds, therefore, it should be ok for me to do this.

If you feel that a lot of unnecessary research is being done, then do your research on the subject, and publish or otherwise voice your informed opinions. Don't just quote a lot of anecdotal information. Maybe there is a lot of unecessary research being done. Maybe changes in research methods, training and permit processes need to be changed. But again what does that have to do with bird photography?

 

[Jay Gould]

Hi Ed, I am not sure who you are addressing?

The scientists who say that photographers should not take close shots because it disturbs the birds, or the photographers who say to the scientists:

stop complaining about photographers;

what you scientists do is more harmful to the birds and we photographers support what you do so how about supporting us photographers too?

 

[Roger Clark]

I went to this report.
http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/towerkillweb.pdf

To me it is a very incomplete piece of research. It documents 545,250 dead birds listed as killed by towers. That covers 230 species. But what the report fails to document is how many total days in the survey. The data were collected over 50 years! Nor are there any documented reports of bird deaths in areas not near a tower. How do we know those were all due to tower deaths without a comparison to non-tower areas? Birds die everywhere.

I have found 4 dead birds in my yard in 13 years at my current house. I could conclude they were due to collisions with my house. I know of one collision with the house, but the bird flew away. Three of the bird deaths occurred in the year West Nile virus hit Colorado, and the 4th was the year after.

The point is one can use data for multiple purposes, and unless careful controls are on the study, one can't actually prove a single given cause. So given those caveats, the study above reported 525,250 dead birds over some 50 years at some X number of towers. X is not given although 47 sites were given some of which have 32 towers. Assuming 1000 towers, that works out to about 10.5 birds per tower per year assuming all the birds were killed by towers.

And if the bird population in the US is ~5 billion, over 50 years, its a pretty small mortality rate.

 

[William Malacarne]

I went to this report.
http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/towerkillweb.pdf Assuming 1000 towers, that works out to about 10.5 birds per tower per year assuming all the birds were killed by towers.

And if the bird population in the US is ~5 billion, over 50 years, its a pretty small mortality rate.

But if you look at the whole picture where there are probably many 100,000's of towers in the USA then 10.5 birds per year starts to become a fairly large number. But I whole heartily agree that the numbers they give are basically useless.

One place where I am very sure that tagging has been very useful is with the California Condor program.

Bill