Re: A wager ... exactly Andrew

[Penn Gwynne <>]

Andrew Taylor <> wrote:

 

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 06:12:28PM -0700, Penn Gwynne wrote:

G'day Andrew, bird deaths caused by an unnatural event such as being snared by a longline or snared in a tree due to being trapped by a legband are NOT a NATURAL event and therefore will not appear in the
databases of those that snare. How can they appear? so the data being used is very flawed and dare I say lopsided? an informed guess~timate
at best is made. That's my beef, how incorrect the assumed death rates are from banding.

How can they not appear.

 

Because they are hanging in the trees generally miles away from being seen by a human and as likely as not become food for raptors or land dwelling creatures that have a taste for blood, OR have been thrown away from the long lines far out at sea. Hence my alluding to Mrs. Greying Nurse Shark caring for penguins.

 

When you estimate mortality rates from subsequent observations of marked individuals, all causes of mortality will be included in the estimates.

 

REALLY!!!!!! I'm love with that one can I please include it in a comedy sketch? how fraught with anxiety is the estimator? and how far back does the knowledge of subsequent observations go? compared with the birds life, as in duration of life on this planet.

The re-observations are translated into estimates of mortality and
other population parameters using various statistical models.

 

I am fully aware of this and it's thee translation I'm having a go at. If thee guesstimate is awry in the first instance then?

 

If you really want to know how biologists analyze such data read chapter 4 of "Population Parameters - Estimation for Ecological Models" by Hamish McCallum.

 

I've seen biologists doing analysis, saw one once then had to point out to her evaporation rates in the lab. Perhaps I need to send you a famous book about wild bird care from a well recognised chap that many know.

Separating causes of mortality would generally require data which is
more difficult to collect, e.g.

 

There YOU go Andrew using the olde tired words "because it's more difficult lets NOT do it that way?

 

You might have to radio-track individuals over long periods.

 

Or????

Biologists definitely consider whether the methods of marking or
observation might influence the data - Its not just deaths - e.g. color
bands might enhance a male's chance of reproductive success.

 

Or detract or????

You seem to be alleging that biologists doing such studies are cruel,
deceptive and/or incompetant.

 

Yours words Andrew, and those that are poorly trained and qualified and yet still perform bird banding work ... then YES I AM.

 

I've met a few and they are smart people who go to lengths to avoid killing or injuring animals.

 

BUT FINANCES RULE THERE WORLD? I'm screaming at you now.

Then why does the bird death toll grow? more banders out there having more accidents perhaps? are you truly hearing what I am saying? I fear not my good friend.

Andrew Taylor

Andrew you really do assume totally incorrectly, but then again that's what happens when learned folk who number so few enter the world of assuming?

 

John Gamblin (apologies as this morning I had a bad fall and have torn some arm muscles but I did so much want to let you know EXACTLY how strongly I feel about those folk, like yourself, who ARE DEVOTED, to being ordered to go out and perform a task that kills wild birds, and why? also each bird death hurts not only me but could it by a sheer fluke bring about a change in bird life patterns?

---

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.