Banding the chicks

[Fabs Forns]

Students from University of Florida, they survey and keep up with the Snail Kite nests at Loxahatchee NWR. A bunch of them came today and the birds know the trucks and got very uneasy. It was both disturbing and interesting. We got to see the chicks up close and personal, one of them got a radio transmitter that will self eliminate after 2 years. They got a bootie in their heads as they were banded and measured. And not very happy campers :(
These is as they were brough back to the nest, ready for three months of counseling :cool:
They are supposed to fledge in two days, they are 27 days old today and very plump and good looking.
As you can see, they were complaining all the way to the nest.

[Fabs Forns]

Mom didn't like the intruders. Both came very close to them, but no real attack. They told us, that, unlike other raptors, they would come close, but no attack.

[Alfred Forns]

I thought they would attack !!! Sure came close ... and mom was relentless !!!! sort of makes you wonder why they run away from little birds !!!!

[Steve Martin]

This is so cool to see. My youngest son and I are huge fans of the Snail Kite and visited Loxahatchee last year. We managed to see 1 pair but were unable to get any real keepers. Unfortunately, we don't have these raptors this far north. Thanks for posting this, hope the research can make a difference in the survival of this species.

[Ed Cordes]

Thanks for sharing this info. It is kind of cool in one respect and cruel in another. Hopefully the effort these birds are putting forth - voluntary or not - will help assure the species survival in the wild.

[John Chardine]

Ed- I don't want to bring up this debate again but I will say that if work like this was not done in favour of "letting nature alone", we would still be literally in the dark ages with respect to wildlife conservation and species like the California Condor, maybe the Snail Kite, and many others would be long-gone. Many might not think of this but a conservation issue as important as any other is lack of knowledge about the species you are trying to conserve. It is extremely difficult to conserve something you know very little about. It is important to mention that work like this has to be done very carefully by trained individuals and you would probably not believe the amount of paper work and permits you have to obtain to get the job done.

[Fabs Forns]

These were very capable students (graduate) and did their job with passion. It took them a long time as they carefully took measurements and as John said, lots of paper work.
He took his time to explain to all photographers that were there, what they were doing.

I had never seen this, so for me, it was disturbing, but I understand what was done and why. He told us the transmitter helps them know much more about the bird, even when it flies, as opposed to the band only, which may be a while before they see that bird again. Transmitter was loose and a certain size (Snail Kites don't vary in size) and it's big enough to be comfortable as the bird grows. The straps that secure it had mark where it needed to be crazy glued and that material will disintegrate in the space of two years, which is the time they need to follow the bird.
Amazing to see how smart the birds are, they don't mind the pedestrian photographers, but they resented the truck, in a very little used (motor vehicles) service road.

[Arthur Morris]

Ed- I don't want to bring up this debate again but I will say that if work like this was not done in favour of "letting nature alone", we would still be literally in the dark ages with respect to wildlife conservation and species like the California Condor, maybe the Snail Kite, and many others would be long-gone. Many might not think of this but a conservation issue as important as any other is lack of knowledge about the species you are trying to conserve. It is extremely difficult to conserve something you know very little about. It is important to mention that work like this has to be done very carefully by trained individuals and you would probably not believe the amount of paper work and permits you have to obtain to get the job done.

As you know, John, I do not agree that the huge amount of disturbance caused by researchers is always necessary. For example, the gannets at Bonavanture are forcefully tanked off of their nests by researchers wielding wire nooses on poles (after placing the wire nooses around the birds' necks. This is done despite that fact that the popluation of gannets at this location is beyond thriving. I would love to hear your explanation with regards to Bonaventure.

As for the Lox Snail Kites. Considering that Snail Kite has been well researched over the past two decades and as this is a new nesting location for this species (I think), is there not a chance that this pair will be driven elsewhere as a result of the banding operations? When is enough research enough?

[John Chardine]

I've drafted an answer but can't post right now due to problems I'm having posting large messages. The boys are looking into it.

[Raul Quinones]

Thanks Fabs for posting. I went yesterday to Lox (just hiking, no camera) around 2:00Pm, I saw the male and female, thanks to you and all other photographers that have been documenting the kites this year. Even at 2:00PM the mosquitoes were driving me crazy, I can't imagine during the sunrise.

Raul

[John Chardine]

As you know, John, I do not agree that the huge amount of disturbance caused by researchers is always necessary. For example, the gannets at Bonavanture are forcefully tanked off of their nests by researchers wielding wire nooses on poles (after placing the wire nooses around the birds' necks. This is done despite that fact that the popluation of gannets at this location is beyond thriving. I would love to hear your explanation with regards to Bonaventure.

snip

This question does come up now and then. I guess it is good not to shy away from further discussion, unless everyone is sick with the subject, which in this case I don't think they are.

At the outset I'll say that these are obviously just my opinions; there are no absolutes with this question. You bring up a good point Artie- how do you justify intrusive research on wildlife species that are doing well such as the Northern Gannet? I'll answer with a chain of reasoning:

1. Wild organisms are complex, and their ecology is multi-dimensional. Many live a long time. Inter-annual variability, and variability between populations and individuals is often high.
2. Therefore building a body of knowledge about an organism takes time and building a body of knowledge sufficient for conservation purposes takes a long time.
3. Therefore, it is not helpful to start building this body of knowledge at the same time a species is found to be in trouble. By then it would be way too late.
4. Therefore, conservation research has to be preemptive and not reactive.
5. We work on gannets now, because we have faith (yes I did say faith!) that the work could be useful in the future.

The proof of this line of reasoning can be found in the conservation efforts towards almost any endangered or threatened species (except the ones that are newly discovered and already of concern), which are directed by what is known about the biology and ecology of the species in question. The body of knowledge that has brought the California Condor back from the brink of extinction is over 100 years old and much of this was gathered at times when no one in their right mind would have thought that the species may at some time in the future become critically endangered.

I'll make two more points. First, I work on population conservation of marine birds in Atlantic Canada and so I have a bias towards conservation-driven research. There are academics out there who use wild animals as research models to answer basic research questions, not necessarily directly related to conservation. In these cases I know first-hand that this "pure research" is carefully scrutinised by federal or state/provincial agencies which have a fiduciary responsibility for the species concerned (I serve on such a science review committee for the Canadian government). One aspect of the scrutiny involves a cost-benefit analysis of the work and any whose costs outweigh expected benefits are not permitted (literally, i.e., no permit is given). Also, all proposed science research on migratory birds in Canada is posted on a government web site for public review and comment for 15 days.

Second point is that the operative word above is population conservation. I am concerned about the effect of a particular proposed research at the population level. Therefore, if the population is doing well, as with Northern Gannets right now, and say the work involves a minute fraction of the total population, I am much more inclined to make a positive recommendation than if the reverse situation pertained. So you might then ask, "well who is looking out for the welfare of the individual?" The answer is that all wild and captive animal research in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and most other countries with a developed science program, is scrutised by Animal Care Committees, which are made up of biologists, veterinarians and the like. I also sit on our local Animal Care Committee so I'm speaking from first-hand knowledge here too. These committees address the well-being of the individual, say that Snail Kite chick that's being banded and measured and radio-tagged by biologists in the field.

Finally, I'm not saying that the above checks and balances are perfect but I do think they work pretty well these days, at least in Canada.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi John, I do agree with much of what you say above. Let's see if I have these parts right:

1-It is OK to study and disturb and disturb a population of an endangered or threatened species because the stuff that we learn might be useful in helping to preserve the species.
2-It is OK to study and disturb and disturb a population that is doing well so that the stuff that we learn might be useful in helping to preserve the species at some point in time.
3-If any bird looks at the photographer the photographer is a criminal.

Yes, the last remark is made somewhat sarcastically but how does the (very minimal) disturbance caused by one photographer photographing one nesting plover compare with the disturbance caused by dozens of gannets being yanked (not tanked) off of their nests with wire nooses tightened around their necks? And then multiply that many thousand fold to get an idea of the disturbance caused to nesting birds by researchers across North America.

All I am asking for is a level playing field for photographers (many of whose images have proved valuable in fighting for and attaining a variety of conservation and environmental goals.

[John Chardine]

Hi John, I do agree with much of what you say above. Let's see if I have these parts right:

"1-It is OK to study and disturb and disturb a population of an endangered or threatened species because the stuff that we learn might be useful in helping to preserve the species."

More or less but you have one too many "disturbs" in there. The tolerance for disturbance of an endangered species is much lower than for a common species. BTW, individuals are disturbed, not populations, and usually only the minutest fraction of the population at that.

"2-It is OK to study and disturb and disturb a population that is doing well so that the stuff that we learn might be useful in helping to preserve the species at some point in time."

More or less correct, but again, you have one too many "disturbs" in there Artie. Must be something wrong with your keyboard.

"3-If any bird looks at the photographer the photographer is a criminal."

Incorrect but if you build a blind around a nest of an endangered species and prune the vegetation you will be fined big bucks under the Canadian Species at Risk Act or I presume the equivalent in the US (as happened to two Canadian photographers out west last year. They were also ordered not to sell any of the photographs they made of the species).

"Yes, the last remark is made somewhat sarcastically but how does the (very minimal) disturbance caused by one photographer photographing one nesting plover compare with the disturbance caused by dozens of gannets being yanked (not tanked) off of their nests with wire nooses tightened around their necks? And then multiply that many thousand fold to get an idea of the disturbance caused to nesting birds by researchers across North America."

I don't think anyone is saying they are equivalent. Of course disturbance from biologists far outweighs that from photographers. Disturbance is not the "elephant in the room". Biologists well understand this, design their studies to measure the "observer effect", try to minimise it, and ultimately publish the results. What is crucially important here is weighing those costs against benefits, and here I think most photographers would agree that although their work has considerable conservation value it cannot come close to amounting to the cumulative value of all the conservation biology work going on. Are you really arguing that they are equivalent Artie? If so I would be very interested in the line of reasoning.

"All I am asking for is a level playing field for photographers (many of whose images have proved valuable in fighting for and attaining a variety of conservation and environmental goals."

I don't think most photographers would want a level playing field with biologists if it meant 1. Studying the impacts of photography on their subjects, 2. obtaining many different permits to photograph, 3. continually having to show that the benefits of photography outweigh the costs from a conservation perspective. This is what field biologists have to do every day.

Final comment- It is healthy to discuss these issues and bring them out in the open. We may never agree on this one Artie but I think the process is a valuable one which is allowed by the existence of BPN and other sites like it.

John