Hi all
Adverse impacts from banding local passerines is not comparable to the
destruction caused by canon netting and marking small long distant
migratory waders such as Stints, Curlew Sandpiper, Red Knot or
Sanderling etc etc.. with multiple combinations of large brightly
coloured leg flags.
The debate should be about the main problem; serious impacts and losses
caused to rare and endangered migratory birds from destructive banding
practices i.e.. organised mass bird trapping using canon nets and then,
leg flagging, especially multiple leg flagging and banding of many
individuals. Apart from the well documented trauma from canon netting,
physical injury to birds, site feeding aversion, roosting site
disturbance etc etc; there are multiple hidden impacts to the subjects
caused by leg flagging. Tangling, fatigue, disadvantage to feed
competitively, predator attraction, impeding flight maneuverability,
effect on long distant flight aerodynamics and behavior interactions;
these are just a few of the questions that should be answered before any
more wader leg flagging/banding is permitted
Resulting from organised "mass targeting of waders" at strategic bird
migration hot spots, the affect is no longer on a small percentage of
individuals; affected birds comprise a large percentage of the world
population. So called ringing stations and banding sites are dotted
across the planet and there appear to be no real protected areas
offering any protection for waders from destructive banding practices..
Ian May
St Helens
Tasmania
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg and Val Clancy wrote:
I, like Damien, was greatly concerned at the unsubstantiated claims
made by Geoff and although I was thinking that it was better to leave
sleeping dogs lie these claims could not be left unchallenged. Damien
has done a great job in doing this but I know that people who have an
irrational hatred for something will not be swayed by facts. However
I will provide some more facts and some personal examples. To obtain
an A class bird banding licence involves banding over 500 birds under
the direct supervision of two A class banders. You can't band bird
anywhere you want as you have to have a specific project which is not
that easy to obtain. Most projects are covered by an animal care and
ethics approval and the approving committees usually have a broad
representation including animal rights organisations. In addition
banders require a state scientific licence with strict conditions and
reporting requirements. The Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme in
Canberra maintains a database of all birds banded and advises members
of the public of banding details when banded birds are found. Banding
allows the distances moved by birds to be accurately determined as
well as recoding how long they live. Prior to banding studies
scientists thought that due to their high metabolic rates small birds
would only be able to live for about 5 or 6 years. Banding has shown
that small passerines can live as long as 18 years - I personally
retrapped a White-browed Scrubwren at that age - and larger birds such
as Oystercatchers have reached 30 years. The details for each species
banded in Australia can be found on the Australian Bird and Bat
Banding Scheme's website. The longest distance recorded and the
longest time between banding and recovery are also presented for each
species. This is worth reading. The fact that we are retrapping
birds many years after banding and sometimes a number of times over
the years indicates that the stress of banding is minimal. An example
of how relaxed birds are when being handled is while handling a
honeyeater a fly landed on my hand and the bird casually reached over
and snapped the fly in its bill. On another occasion a Lewin's
Honeyeater that I released flopped to the ground. I was a little
concerned at first but what it was dong was hopping over to a fruit of
the Strangler Fig that had fallen to the ground. It ate its fill and
flew off strongly a few minutes later. People who cannot handle birds
with care will not get a licence to band. The welfare of the birds is
always paramount in banding activities. In the rare instance that a
problem arises band sizes, banding techniques etc. are reviewed. Some
species are not allowed to be banded because of problems with bands.
So in summary Geoff you can see that banders don't just race around
the country banding birds willy-nilly and unduly stressing birds.
Banding is a heavy regulated activity that requires a great commitment
from the bander who also spends hours of his/her own time and usually
covers all travelling and equipment expenses because banders do care
about the welfare of birds and do regularly think about the positives
and negatives of their activities. It is good to know that people
care about the welfare of our birds but if you don't like banding then
don't participate in it but please stop trying to undermine, with
unsubstantiated claims, an important activity which is contributing
significantly to our knowledge of birds.
Regards
Greg
Dr Greg. P. Clancy
Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide
| PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460
| 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960
http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com
http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/
-----Original Message----- From: Damien Farine
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:03 AM
To: Geoffrey Allan Jones ;
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] A Band of Birders & Others
Firstly: my motivation for continuing on this debate is that there is
obviously a general lack of awareness about many issues and benefits
of studying birds, combined with some deep concerns about the welfare
of doing this.
Geoff,A few answers to your questions.
First, there has been extensive research on the effects of banding.
For example here is a nice study relating to waders by some very
well-regarded researchers: http://goo.gl/ABYwco. Some studies will
also report detrimental effects in order to encourage avoiding that
technique for a particular species. These make recommendations that
are then generally enforced by the banding office.
I think that the main issue with this debate stems from people being
opposed to cannon netting. Let me again re-assure you that cannon
netting is rare. As far as I know, only a handful of people are even
licensed to do it, and these people are typically involved in active
research. I don't have experience with shorebirds, but it is
exceedingly rare that a bird is injured in a mist-net (rates of
self-injury must be less than 1/10000). One way that birds are killed
is by predators while caught in a net (in this case it happens very
fast). This is avoidable by keeping a good lookout.
Birds are not flushed into mist-nets. In general, banders rely on
placing mist-nets in flyways, hoping to catch birds as they move
through the landscape. Birds are very rarely 'jabbed' for blood
samples - this is really only done for very targeted studies (and
becoming rarer as techniques are enabling more and more data to be
extracted from foecal samples).
In many cases, banding is important for keeping track of the actual
population size. I suspect that this is what is being done with the
orange-bellied parrots. No one claims that banding helps the birds
survive - again I re-iterate that conservation is achieved by
implementing actions based on knowledge, and knowledge can only be
gained by research.
Now what I find most disturbing about your post is the use of terms
such as 'so-called sake of research'. The political climate in
Australia is totally decimating science. There is almost no money left
for basic exploratory/discovery research. Yet this is the foundation
of our knowledge. The fact that, in this country, even people that are
obviously interested in these issues and identify as nature-lovers do
not support scientific endeavour is simply frightening. For example,
studying the response of common species to different environmental
changes tells us a great deal more than studying rare or endangered
species - and we should be encouraging all possible avenues of enquiry
in these times of massive change. Instead, we are moving towards a
model where only science with a direct application is viewed as
important - both in terms of government research but also increasingly
in the eyes of the general public.
As I stated in my first post - the vast majority of birds that are
banded are part of active research targeted at gaining knowledge about
various species. There have been hundreds of PhD students that have
studied the ecology and conservation biology of largely unknown
Australian species. This information is money in the bank, but is
generally only achievable by having each individual uniquely
identifiable. Hence, unlike shooting birds, which was based largely on
describing species and their distribution, banding enables us to
collect a wealth of knowledge that, one day, may be invaluable.
I think that, before criticising banding in general, it may be helpful
to find ways to help build understanding surrounding scientific
activities so that people can make informed decisions. I know that
most universities in Australia allow the public to attend many of the
seminars they run. Approaching biology and ecology departments at a
local university is one way getting more exposure to some of the great
work being done out there. Sadly, in Australia there is very little
media coverage of discovery science (unlike say on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature).
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|