Mist Netting & Bird Banding; Right or Wrong?

[Jay Gould]

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

This is so much fun

Let's assume 1,000,000 towers and 10,000,000 birds are killed by the towers every year.

Hmmmm

5 billion birds create how many new birds each year reduced by 10 million birds that die as a result of the 1 million towers that benefit Man?

Seems like a good trade to me - 1,000,000 towers for Man; 10 million out of "X" billion birds born each year scarified for the benefit of Man.

I don't have a problem with those numbers assuming the correctness of the assumptions for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Jason Franke]

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.

Large with out context is meaningless.

1 death is huge when the population is 10, but one clearly isn't a large number.

Lets not even make up numbers though, lets assume that the article did sufficient research on easily countable things like comm towers and go from there.

The tower kills article claims there were over 77,000 (lets round that up to 78K) comm. towers as of 2000. assuming the 5K new towers built per year number they give is accurate, that would mean there is about 118K towers now. At Rodger's estimated 10.5 kills/tower/year that's 1.2M kills per year. Assuming the population number of 5B that Rodger gives is accurate, then tower strikes account for 0.025%, that's one quarter of one tenth of one percent,of the population. Either way unless there are specific cases where certain populations are impacted disproportionately, I don't see the problem at all.

Talking about fallacies though, the paper is the biggest red herring in this thread.

 

[Jay Gould]

Jason, of that there is no doubt - a giant red herring; however, using the numbers lets you put this whole discussion into perspective.

I doubt all of the scientific methods of avian study combined have that much affect on the bird population.

If everyone would simply practice "live and let live" or better yet - MYOB - everyone would be better off including the birds.

 

[Roger Clark]

Tonight on the local news (Denver), wildlife biologists were describing how they harass and scare huge numbers of birds (even shooting guns). They are employed by Denver International Airport to keep birds from colliding with planes. Then the news cut to the hunters in the airport area and showed them shooting geese out of the sky with planes passing overhead, all close to the airport. Just an interesting perspective. But I bet a photographer would be harassed out there for taking pictures--after all they are probably casing the airport for terrorist activities--what else would they be doing.

Impressive numbers of birds by the airport....maybe I'll have to take my big lens out there. ;-)

 

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

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.

Lance,

I am saddened reading all the posts in this and the "baiting" - supplemental, threads. I suppose we are quite lucky in the land of Oz that the madness had not yet reached the end of the world.

As far as I am aware, we as photographers, are pretty free to do how we want and where within reason and for that I quote the famous line, well not verbatim perhaps - Australia, the lucky country.

 

[BillTyler]

Why repeat?

Hi Artie

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.

If you don't repeat this type of study over time, you'll never find out about changes in migration patterns.

Bill

 

[Rich Steel]

Bill that is a reasonable point and obviously there is value for study of migration. Indeed I have several times passed on ring information to the local bird group when I have been able to read the information from a photograph.

I will hold up my hands and not claim to be an ornithologist but I am a photographer and it concerns me how our freedom is being eroded by misinformation, the mindless actions of a few and increased regulation. The main issue I have with ringing studies is with the continued wholesale ringing of resident woodlands species associated with nest box schemes. Surely this area has been studied to exhaustion and its sad to see some of the small passerines suffering with leg injuries.

Cheers

Rich

 

[c.w. moynihan]

Yes, I agree Arthur. It is ludricous to suggest that banding activities are not stressful and perhaps dangerous to birds..... Far worse imo, than a photographer using a call or bait to take a picture of a subject. I am reminded of hummingbird banders... the nets are set up the day before and these birds are entangled, struggling for hours, unable to feed before they are found in the nets, banded and released. Talk about stress to an animal.

 

[John Chardine]

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.

I have resisted contributing because is appears that all people want to do is fight, which is hugely non-productive. Then I read the quote above from Artie (my red letters).

Problem is Artie that this will not happen if inflammatory and inaccurate things continue to be said. E.g.:

1. Biologists only do research to get their name on papers
2. "Biologists have been and are given a free pass".
3. All birds mist-netted are damaged by the nets
4. "I am reminded of hummingbird banders... the nets are set up the day before and these birds are entangled, struggling for hours, unable to feed before they are found in the nets, banded and released."

I can provide detailed reasons why the above points are fallacious but I won't, so don't bother asking.

Finally I think that Ed Erkes' and Roy Priest's posts on this subject hit the nail on the head.

 

[Peregrine Craig Nash]

Here is my take on the care taken by BTO Bird Ringers
http://peregrinesbirdblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/bto-ireland-bird-ringing-training.html

 

[Neil Losin]

Hi all,

As another biologist (I'm pleased to see there are plenty of us here), I thought I should chime in. First, I wholeheartedly agree with John Chardine -- this thread isn't going to resolve anything in its current form. As John says, there's lots of misinformation being spread around. But in particular, I'd like to address the rather baffling contention that biologists are given a "free pass" to do what they want with wildlife.

Those of us who study birds (and other vertebrates) spend what feels like half of our lives applying for, revising applications for, and sometimes begging for permits to do our work. You cannot study birds in the US (or most other countries) without going through a long, involved, bureaucratic nightmare of a permitting process. Now, this process is a colossal pain in the a**, but it ensures that every detail of your research methodology is reviewed by other scientists before you are ever allowed to begin your study. These reviewers understand both the potential contributions of your research (and therefore they are able to ensure that you are not unnecessarily replicating past studies), and the potential risks. Permit applications are refused *all the time* because insufficient precautions are taken for the safety of the animals involved. Research permits are only granted when the potential benefits of the research are deemed greater than the potential costs.

Thankfully, photographers don't often have to justify their craft in order to practice it (I realize that there are sites that restrict photographers' access while allowing other forms of recreation, and this is lamentable). So rather than gripe about a fallacious "double standard" in which scientists are allowed to molest wildlife willy-nilly, perhaps we should be thankful for a genuine double standard: the fact that, so far, photographers are not generally required to justify their actions to the same extent that scientists are.

And FWIW, the idea that scientists do their work for the glory of getting their name on a publication is just as absurd as saying that the only reason Artie takes photographs is so he can see his name in every issue of Bird Watcher's Digest. Most scientists do science because they love the thrill of discovery. Even if you publish a paper in a prestigious journal like Science or Nature, there's no cash prize or lecture circuit. There are *much* easier ways to be seen than by developing a research project, acquiring permits, performing arduous fieldwork, analyzing data, then writing a manuscript that has to run another gauntlet of peer reviewers before it will ever see the light of day! [Example: public access television ]

I'll continue to watch the thread with interest. Cheers,

Neil

 

[Grady Weed]

Thank you John and Neil for your patience, kind remarks, your valued and informed point of view. John; I appreciate your often well thought out and accurate replies to our many questions. I am sure you put a lot of work into each one and we thank you for your dedication to BPN. Neil; your reply is also appreciated. To often we all get caught up in the heat of the moment and reply without thinking. I sincerely hope this thread is a start to all of us seeing the others point of view. A respectful interchange will help us all to change for the good of our craft and of course the animal's we so dearly love will benefit as well.

Thanks to all at BPN for a classy site. No where else on the Internet can such a talented group be found.

Respectfully,

Grady Weed

 

[Jay Gould]

Thanks to all at BPN for a classy site. No where else on the Internet can such a talented group be found.

Grady, you are so right. I am blown away by the amount of time and efforts so many nationally and internationally recognized photographers give of their time.

Thank you one and all.

 

[John Chardine]

Well said Neil- right on the mark. I would add that the vast majority of biologists I know who work on animals in the wild do so because they are concerned about and want to contribute to the conservation of wild species. Publications are a means to communicate results and are almost never the sole reason for doing the work (except maybe if you are a junior professor trying to get tenure!).

Field biologists know they have an effect on the species they work on- this is the equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal in biology- you cannot study a system without affecting it. These effects are universally unwanted and every effort is made to reduce them to a minimum (they are rarely ever reduced to zero) and control for them in field experiments. Many field techniques now involve remote observation of subjects with no actual contact with the researcher. And as Neil mentioned all of this is scrutinised by animal care committees, scientific permit committees (I sit on both for the Canadian government), bird banding offices that require banders to be trained in the use of mist nets and other capture techniques and on and on. Ultimately all this produces a body of knowledge that is indispensable when conservation action is needed. At the risk of bringing up a very controversial topic, species like the California Condor would probably be extinct today if we had buried our head in the sand for fear that research on the species would cause too much damage.

On the whole issue of banding/ringing I see this being ultimately superceded by studies of free living animals to which small data loggers, GPS units or satellite tags are attached. Much smaller numbers of animals need to be captured in these types of studies and the data gathered yields much more location information per unit of effort.

The Bird Studies Canada tag line is "Understand, appreciate, conserve". I think this says it all for biologists and photographers.

 

[Axel Hildebrandt]

On the whole issue of banding/ringing I see this being ultimately superceded by studies of free living animals to which small data loggers, GPS units or satellite tags are attached. Much smaller numbers of animals need to be captured in these types of studies and the data gathered yields much more location information per unit of effort.

John, I find this part particularly interesting. Could you say more about this and is it likely when transmitters get even smaller and lighter that banding/ringing might become a thing of the past soon?

 

[John Chardine]

Yes Axel, it is an interesting and quickly developing area of field biology. First I'll say that I don't think banding/ringing is going to end any time soon. It is still the cheapest, low-tech way of finding out about the movements of free-living birds. However, it has its limitations because all you end up knowing is the location where the bird was recovered dead but you have no idea what happened in between unless the bird is marked with a unique combination of colour rings or engraved neck band etc.

The advantage of location devices attached to birds is that you know where the bird is over the time it is carrying the device. There are three main types- satellite tags (PTTs) which beam the bird's location to a satellite, GPS tags which store GPS location in memory, and geo-loggers which store the time the sun rises and sets and therefore can give you latitude and longitude. They all have their advantages and disadvantages- GPS devices give the most accurate location, followed by PTT and a distant third, geo-loggers. Another big difference between devices is that PTTs do not have to be recovered from the birds (they are designed to drop off after a period of time), whereas GPS and geo-loggers have to be recovered to download the data from memory. However, even this latter problem will be solved with built-in Bluetooth technology. Finally, the devices differ in size- the smallest GPS (about 8 grams) and PTT (about 11 grams) devices are bigger than the smallest geo-loggers (about 1 gram) and they are all getting smaller all the time. There is a widely accepted limit to the weight of a device you can attach to a bird, which is 5% or less of the body mass. Smaller and smaller devices allow their use on smaller and smaller birds with few if any ill effects. So right now a 1 gram device (1.5 grams including leg band) could be used on a 30 gram bird which would include birds the size of a thrush or sparrow, which is pretty amazing! Here's an article about using geo-loggers on small birds and hints at the important conservation implications of these studies:

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=327

 

[William Malacarne]

Here is a story of GPS used on Calif Condors.

http://mountainenterprise.com/atf.php?sid=4430&current_edition=2009-02-20

Bill

 

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Yes Axel, it is an interesting and quickly developing area of field biology. First I'll say that I don't think banding/ringing is going to end any time soon. It is still the cheapest, low-tech way of finding out about the movements of free-living birds. However, it has its limitations because all you end up knowing is the location where the bird was recovered dead but you have no idea what happened in between unless the bird is marked with a unique combination of colour rings or engraved neck band etc.

The advantage of location devices attached to birds is that you know where the bird is over the time is is carrying the device. There are three main types- satellite tags (PTTs) which beam the bird's location to a satellite, GPS tags which store GPS location in memory, and geo-loggers which store the time the sun rises and sets and therefore can give you latitude and longitude. They all have their advantages and disadvantages- GPS devices give the most accurate location, followed by PTT and a distant third, geo-loggers. Another big difference between devices is that PTTs do not have to be recovered from the birds (they are designed to drop off after a period of time), whereas GPS and geo-loggers have to be recovered to download the data from memory. However, even this latter problem will be solved with built-in Bluetooth technology. Finally, the devices differ in size- the smallest GPS (about 8 grams) and PTT (about 11 grams) devices are bigger than the smallest geo-loggers (about 1 gram) and they are all getting smaller all the time. There is a widely accepted limit to the weight of a device you can attach to a bird, which is 5% or less of the body mass. Smaller and smaller devices allow their use on smaller and smaller birds with few if any ill effects. So right now a 1 gram device (1.5 grams including leg band) could be used on a 30 gram bird which would include birds the size of a thrush or sparrow, which is pretty amazing! Here's an article about using geo-loggers on small birds and hints at the important conservation implications of these studies:

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=327

Thanks, John! This is very informative and sounds useful, especially if they can be used on smaller birds, too. Are these devices waterproof (shorebirds, diving birds) and do you know if they are affordable for researchers?

 

[Peregrine Craig Nash]

This might be of interest re the tracking devices.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926661.300-cracking-the-mysteries-of-bird-migration.html
I looked for E7 when I was in NZ recently but didnt see her!!

 

[Axel Hildebrandt]

This might be of interest re the tracking devices.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926661.300-cracking-the-mysteries-of-bird-migration.html
I looked for E7 when I was in NZ recently but didnt see her!!

Thanks for the link, very interesting! I found one about sooty shearwaters that I found amazing, especially since I am a big fan of seabirds. I guess this answers my question if these devices are waterproof: http://www.terranature.org/sootyShearwaterMigration.htm