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: 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>
|
