Hi all
Still here!
An extract from the UK newsgroup "UK.rec.birdwatching! where the question is
being asked. The final paragraph from Andy Harmer says it all.
NP
> > >>Jenny Allen wrote
> > >>
> > >>I wish to comment on the debate about cannon netting and ringing
shorebirds. It is the substance of what is said and not who says it that is
important
Perhaps it maybe too harsh to suggest that ringing is meaningless for
shorebird conservation. Ringing has provided some useful data that has been
used effectively in the past but my question is, would effective shorebird
protection strategies have been developed anyway?
> > Bill Alexander wrote> > >
> > I have some sympathy with the question so will respond. First I
should say that I have held a UK bird ringing licence since the mid 1970's.
In the late 70s / early 80s I was involved, as part of a cannon net crew,
in wader (shorebird) research on the Forth Estuary. Yes there was
mortality but 4% was not normal.
> > A difficult question to answer and very probably the wrong question!
What I can say with some certainty is that without the data gathered from
ringing, and specifically cannon netting, many estuary sites would have
been lost to development in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s
Andy Harmer wrote:
>
> Which sites, and what was the data gleaned from canon netting that
clinched it?
>
> Andy
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|