There's a difference in birdwatching and studies that involve handling, banding
and attaching tracking devices. But yes, your suggestion works for me. I've
seen some appalling behaviour by some birdwatching groups who have disturbed
breeding birds.
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:28:57 +1100
From:
To: ; ;
CC:
Subject: Leg Flagging scourge now in Tasmania
Based on all that Mark has mentioned, can I suggest that nobody goes
birdwatching during the breeding season then...............................
John Harris
>>> Mark Carey <> 30/03/2011 1:32 PM >>>
There exists a vast amount of scientific evidence that suggests investigators
do have an effect on birds and affect the accuracy of the parameters being
studied. In some cases, the effects of an observer may be negligible but in
others, evidence suggests that the presence of an observer can lower breeding
success, alter behaviour, increase heart rates and stress hormones. Attaching
tracking devices also affect a birds flight and diving ability. Phillips et
al. 2003 suggested that satellite tags should be <3% of body mass. The
attachment of harnesses are a big problem for some species and have caused
complete breeding failure. Avian research in life history theory, demography,
population dynamics require unbiased estimates of fecundity, and behavioural
studies require that behaviour is not affected by investigators.
Ian brings up a very relevant point about banding studies. There is a fine
line between collecting accurate data and biasing our results. Disturbance
(human or investigator) that has a detrimental effect on any individual's
reproductive performance, distribution or population could exacerbate declines
of threatened species and therefore knowledge of these effects is important in
designing any research program. Researchers would be well advised to consider
their impact on the intended study species. Research on birds should explore
the effects researchers have on their study animals and existing studies may
also benefit from these investigations. This may also help correct biased or
misleading data in past studies. Only then can we be sure that researchers are
truly recording a bird's natural behaviour.
Mark
> From:
> To:
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:00:19 +1100
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Leg Flagging scourge now in Tasmania
>
> Ian,
>
> Should satellite tracking be banned as well?. Surely the capturing and
> application of a tracking device is equally traumatic to the birds, as
> is the capture and banding of them.
>
> Carl Clifford
>
> On 30/03/2011, at 10:33 AM, Ian May wrote:
>
> Hello again
>
> Adverse impacts on affected waders from the scourge of leg flagging
> should not be underestimated. Very few leg flagged birds ever make it
> past their next migration. The surviving re-trapped birds are few and
> usually referred to by banders as examples to demonstrate success,
> rarely questioning the disappearance of the vast majority that have
> probably perished as a direct impact of their leg flags.
>
> When Banders are asked why we rarely see flagged waders returning
> after migration, excuses such as “the birds are non site faithful”
> or, “the birds return to remote areas where monitoring is difficult”
> is a common but pathetic response. It needs to be recognised that
> wader leg flagging has been a major threatening process, contributing
> significantly to declines of Curlew Sandpiper, Red Knot and Sanderling
> populations in Australia. It is a devastating process to inflict on
> any small wader.
>
> The 2020 Wader Conservation Project
>
> Wader conservation projects based on field observation, counts,
> behaviour study, photography and habitat protection etc. should be
> strongly supported. These projects provide the information that is
> now required for effective wader and habitat conservation. But
> projects based on destructive processes such as leg flagging, canon
> netting etc should be scrapped; otherwise the 2020 shorebird program
> is just another public funded rort for banders and will do more harm
> than good for the conservation of these vulnerable birds.
>
> Notification of Banding Operations
>
> The benefits of announcing planned banding operations in a local
> region would alert other interested observers to consult and comment
> about projects, watch out for flagged birds and independently to
> assess impacts. The announcements could be via birding-aus or Eremea
> National
>
> Leg Flaggers are actively targeting rare and threatened species.
> However leg flagging waders is now little more than an intrinsic hobby
> beyond its “use by” date.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Ian May
> St Helens, Tasmania
>
>
> Ian May wrote:
> > g'Day all
> > An uncomfortable subject
> > It saddens me to report that in Tasmania this morning, I observed a
> > number of “small waders” recently leg flagged. The birds were
> > struggling about in
> > moderate winds, hobbled by what appeared to be fresh looking
> > manacles. These birds were in areas where in previous years, apart
> > from an occasional
> > flagged stint it has been unusual to see flagged waders. The birds
> > seen today appeared to be struggling in only moderate conditions and
> > if this is an
> > example of 2020 Shorebird conservation, current programs needs to
> > questioned, reviewed and modified urgently.
> > Can anyone inform us of the details, if they know of any recent
> > wader leg flagging in Tasmania? Although I would like to see it
> > banned, in the mean
> > time it should be a requirement of leg flaggers to notify the
> > community in advance of planned banding operations. Specifically the
> > public should be
> > notified when and where, the targeted species and by whom a leg
> > flagging operation is planned. Something similar to the requirement
> > to notify the
> > public when a forest burning operation is planned.
> > Also, can any one inform us how the decision is made by banders to
> > apply multiple flags on a particular bird.
> > Regards
> > Ian May
> > St Helens, Tasmania
> > ===============================
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > send the message:
> > unsubscribe
> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > to:
> > http://birding-aus.org
> > ===============================
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3536 - Release Date:
> > 03/28/11
> > ===============================
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> > send the message:
> > unsubscribe
> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> > to:
> > http://birding-aus.org
> > ===============================
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3536 - Release Date:
> > 03/28/11
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
