Mist Netting & Bird Banding; Right or Wrong?

[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.ph...ion=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/...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/...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

[John Chardine]

Indeed they are waterproof Axel. They are "potted" in epoxy. The really small loggers have only a thin layer and are more prone to failure in salt water. I will be using some slightly bigger ones on kittiwakes this summer as part of a large North Atlantic-wide study of where these birds go in the winter (they are declining in several areas). They have a thicker layer of epoxy and will last for years on the bird (attached to the band/ring). I purchased mine from British Antarctic Survey for about $200, which is not cheap for the average individual. I'm putting on 20 and hope to get 10 or more back in 2010. By the way, the electrical download contacts on these devices are made of 24 carat gold and the software in the package records when the contacts are shorted out by salt water. In this way you can tell how much time the seabird spends in the water as well as where it is.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Indeed they are waterproof Axel. They are "potted" in epoxy. The really small loggers have only a thin layer and are more prone to failure in salt water. I will be using some slightly bigger ones on kittiwakes this summer as part of a large North Atlantic-wide study of where these birds go in the winter (they are declining in several areas). They have a thicker layer of epoxy and will last for years on the bird (attached to the band/ring). I purchased mine from British Antarctic Survey for about $200, which is not cheap for the average individual. I'm putting on 20 and hope to get 10 or more back in 2010. By the way, the electrical download contacts on these devices are made of 24 carat gold and the software in the package records when the contacts are shorted out by salt water. In this way you can tell how much time the seabird spends in the water as well as where it is.

Thanks, John! That is more expensive than I thought. I'm sure the data you will get is much stronger than in the past with 'low tech' solutions. Is there a good hypothesis why the number of kittiwakes declined, toxins?

[John Chardine]

Not sure why yet but we are looking at wintering distribution from the loggers to see if changes in food abundance or oceanography may be a factor. Kittiwakes can't dive very deep for their food so if their favourite prey moves down the water column because of changes in sea surface temperatures, it's as if their food disappeared.

[Matthew Pontiff]

John Chardine summed up my thoughts perfectly. I started to respond to one of the things on his list because it struck a nerve with me since it cannot possibly be true but what would be the point? It wouldn't solve anything..

10.5 birds per tower per year is extremely conservative. Back when you could actually go walk around the towers, one could have days that dozens of dead birds were found under them. And don't forget glass skyscrapers, outdoor cats, vehicles, power lines, pollution, using resources, etc, etc, etc.

My point is isn't fair for researchers to blame photographers and photographers to blame researchers because we all have a negative influence, even if you don't directly see it happening and it's outside of the scope of what you're doing.

Matt