Dear B-A,
The interesting results of the first large scale study into mist netting have recently been published. An over-view of the results and a reference to the paper can be found at http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__10933
Cheers,
Carl Clifford ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Peter,
Adrian knows more about this than I do, so I am glad he’s answered your question!
My impression was that only 2-3 of the especially good hunters, out of originally ~30 hunters at Chongming Dao, were employed to catch shorebirds for research. They generally flag a few thousand birds there each migration season.
All best
Heather
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Leg-flagging of shorebirds
Hi everyone,
I am the person within the Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) who collates all international flag sightings of shorebirds into a database. I am responding to the concerns regarding leg-flagging of waders that have been raised on Birding Aus (repeatedly) by Ian May.
First, can I assure you that there is still much to learn about the migration of many (if not all) species of shorebirds, even though the data generated from leg-flagging to date has already increased our knowledge immensely. In the current edition of AWSG’s journal, The Stilt, there is a paper with the latest migration maps covering all of the common wader species. This includes an explanation of what more has been learned over the last five years, since the last similar report was published. All issues of The Stilt are made available for free, online at the AWSG web site http://www.awsg.org.au http://www.awsg.org.au/ . However, there is a slight delay between publication and uploading to the web site, so if you would like a copy of this latest article, please email me for a copy.
I do not intend to enter into a debate about the pros-and-cons of leg-flagging waders or banding more generally. Suffice to say, it is regulated by the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme (ABBBS) and through research permits granted by the states. If there was any evidence of the sort of adverse impacts from leg flagging that Ian May refers to, ABBBS would most certainly, and immediately, ban leg flagging.
However, in contrast to Ian’s claims, adverse impacts from flagging seem to be incredibly rare.
I will put on the record some further information which might be relevant.
1) In response to these concerns (initially raised directly by Ian May with Clive Minton, rather than via Birding Aus) AWSG did look in great detail at the survival rates of small waders, including Red-necked Stints and Curlew Sandpipers, with and without flags (i.e. those banded only with a metal band, and comparing to those with both a band and a flag). There is no detectable difference in survival. Other analyses of survival of shorebirds cannon-netted, banded and flagged in Australia are consistent with similar studies carried out in other parts of the world, in that they show shorebirds (whether marked with metal bands, individual colour-band combinations, or leg-flags) to be long-lived birds, with high rates of annual adult survival.
Not only do flagged birds survive, they migrate and they get seen on migration. The number of birds resighted on migration is limited by the number of observers in remote places in the flyway, but when careful searches are made, they usually result in fascinating data. Over the past 21 years, there have been over 21,000 resightings of Australian-flagged shorebirds overseas. Important patterns are emerging from these resightings. A recent example is the discovery of the importance of a small region in Bohai Bay for subspecies piersmai of the Red Knot on northwards migration: in 2009 it was used by 80% of birds flagged and individually colour-banded in north-western Australia, and by 62% of those similarly marked in New Zealand [1]. This site is rapidly being lost to tidal flat reclamation projects, and current efforts to preserve it have been driven in large part by the role that flag resightings played in discovering and quantifying its importance.
In response specifically to the Great Knot and Global Flyway network project, Danny Rogers has provided me with the following information: We have done survival analyses on the Great Knots individually colour banded by that project (with one flag and four colour-bands)… Average annual survival of those Great Knots (i.e. the probablility of their surviving from one year to the next) was 93.7%. There were some annual fluctuations (especially a dip right after the closure of the Saemangeum sea-wall, which is why we are analysing that data) but on the whole, Great Knots with colour-bands are right up there with the longest-lived birds that have been studied.
Also of relevance is that some species of shorebird which have never been banded and flagged in Australia are suffering serious declines – one particularly disturbing example being the critically endangered Spoon-billed Sandpiper.
2) AWSG/VWSG always welcome volunteers to come and experience banding first hand, and programs are published in relevant newsletters where possible e.g. Birds Australia’s VicGroup newsletter.
3) All banding studies (and most studies of any kind) do have impacts on the study species, even though great efforts are made to minimise these impacts. Regardless of how carefully you try and study something without affecting it, it is impossible to do so. The individual banders, in conjunction with the banding office, determine how best to minimise the adverse impacts on birds and whether the scientific value of a study outweighs the costs. All I can really say is that the impact of banding and flagging activities is very minimal in comparison to the impacts of natural events and other human activities on these species, and can not possibly be responsible for shorebird population declines. Of course, many of the people banding waders are also those most concerned about (and active in making a difference to) their conservation status. They do this work out of a genuine passion and commitment, and often devote more hours to this work than someone working full time (but for no pay – and often at much cost). So it is easy to criticise, but much harder to go out there and actually “do something better”.
On a much brighter note, some wader-flagging study projects in this flyway have been implemented in place of shorebird hunting. So, for example, every time I see a bird with black and white flags (indicating that it came from Chongming Dao, an island near Shanghai in China) it is a tangible reminder that these birds, which would once have been sold at local markets for food, are now being released alive with colour flags instead.
4) AWSG focuses its conservation efforts on known threats to waders, in particular stopping the destruction of their migratory stop-over sites. This is an uphill battle, but having solid science behind the need to protect these areas is critically important. As over half of the world’s population lives in ‘our’ flyway, development pressures are intense – especially so in China and Korea.
There is an excellent article in a recent ‘Wingspan’ (Birds Australia’s magazine) which highlights the urgency of these threats, and the possibility that existing bilateral conservation agreements (between Australia and China, and Australia and Korea) could help stop or slow this destruction. In their words “With a sustainable future for our shorebirds so imperilled, it is vital that we take action and demand that our governments honour the commitments they have signed up to at the international level”. Read the whole article at:
http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/images/stories/publications/wingspan/Yellow -Sea-article.pdf
It is always encouraging to see the common sense responses (and sometimes, non-responses!) of many Birding Aus members, including those involved in shorebird research. I hope that many of you will report your leg-flag sightings in future – both to AWSG e.g. via our website http://www.awsg.org.au/reportform.php and to Birding Aus. I hope that I will be able to reply to you personally with useful information on the birds that you see, and on how your sightings contribute to AWSG’s research and conservation efforts.
With best wishes for Good Birding, Heather Gibbs (AWSG leg flag sightings)
[1] Danny Rogers, Hong-Yan Yang, Chris J. Hassell, Adrian N. Boyle, Ken G. Rogers, Bing Chen, Zheng-Wang Zhang and Theunis Piersma 2010. Red Knots (Calidris canutus piersmai and C. c. rogersi) depend on a small threatened staging area in Bohai Bay, China. Emu 110: 307-315.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MU10024.htm http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MU10024.htm
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Gary,
I have not read the full paper and have never been involved in any type of trapping, save for rabbits, so I can’t really comment on it. I posted the item for those in both the pro and anti trapping camps on B- A. I do believe though, that those involved in trapping activities in Australia have similar animal welfare standards to those that scientist carrying out trapping mammals. Most, if not all, avian species in Australia that would be subject to trapping programs would have a protected status under various State and Commonwealth Legislation, which running afoul of, can be expensive, if not providing an unexpected holiday at the Government’s expense. Believe me, the damage done by trapping in Australia, is nothing compared to what is going on in SE Asia. There the lucky bird end up in a cage.
I heartily agree with you on habitat destruction on the flyways but I don’t think that the problem is mainly in the poorer countries: unless you call a country that has 1.9 trillion US dollars stuck under their mattress for a rainy day, such as China has, poor And Korea is not exactly doing too shabbily. Unless the rest of the world can persuade these two countries to stop migratory species habitat destruction, I can see the majority of these species near, if not fully extinct in the wild by the end of this century, if not earlier.
Cheers.
Carl Clifford
Hi Carl
I think the study reported does not give useful information in relation to the problems of mist netting. The reason for this is that the study consists of self reporting of banders, who have a self interest in providing favourable information. This is why self regulation does not work.
I believe that the rate of injury is probably low, but I am aware of birds having died from being left in capture bags for too long in sun, for example. Or related issue of mammals dying of cold in traps overnight. Any trapping of the animal must put the animal at risk and the benefit is often highly questionable.
For example in the case of cannon netting of waders, it is my understanding that the flyways of waders are well known and habitat destruction is the biggest threat. Protection of habitat should be the priority and Australia hasn’t even managed to protect its own RAMSAR listed wetlands(Coorong) let alone other poorer countries protecting theirs.
I believe we should look after habitats and not stress more birds by netting.
Gary
g’Day all
Whilst the inevitable questions should be asked about the validity of information supplied by bird_bandin organisations about injury and death of birds caused by their own banding operations, it should be recognised that the said report deals only with mist netting. (see http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__10933 )
The minimal impacts of this relatively passive technique cannot be compared to the highly destructive impacts caused by c_annon_netting and the subsequent leg_fl_agging of our most vulnerable “small migratory wader species” where, after being subjected to these hideous research practices, most of the tagged birds almost certainly die on their next migration
For example, have a look at the wader photos, especially the Great Knot on the first page of this. http:// http://www.globalflywaynetwork.com.au/ Expand the photos, look at the multiple fl_ags on both legs and ask yourself, could this impact on its ability to feed, migrate and breed?
Urgently needed is an “independent” study into the destructive impacts caused by c_annon_netting and leg_fl_agging especially addressing small migratory waders (Great Knot and smaller) and multiple ta_gging impacts.
Furthermore, an immediate three-year Australia moratorium c_annon_netting and leg_fl_agging should be implemented. This would provide the opportunity for all interested observers to participate and evaluate the impacts that will either expose the damage being done or put the matter to rest.
An immediate ban would enable independent field observers to seperate surviving individuals from the presence of recently fl_agged birds and avoid confusing results but to achieve this, it is imperative to instigate a ban now, before any of this season returning migrants are leg_fl_agged
Regards
Ian May PO Box 110 St Helens, Tasmania. 7216 Mob: 0428337956
Carl Clifford wrote:
Dear B-A,
The interesting results of the first large scale study into mist netting have recently been published. An over-view of the results and a reference to the paper can be found at http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__10933
Cheers,
Carl Clifford ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Carl
I think the study reported does not give useful information in relation to the problems of mist netting. The reason for this is that the study consists of self reporting of banders, who have a self interest in providing favourable information. This is why self regulation does not work.
I believe that the rate of injury is probably low, but I am aware of birds having died from being left in capture bags for too long in sun, for example. Or related issue of mammals dying of cold in traps overnight. Any trapping of the animal must put the animal at risk and the benefit is often highly questionable.
For example in the case of cannon netting of waders, it is my understanding that the flyways of waders are well known and habitat destruction is the biggest threat. Protection of habitat should be the priority and Australia hasn’t even managed to protect its own RAMSAR listed wetlands(Coorong) let alone other poorer countries protecting theirs.
I believe we should look after habitats and not stress more birds by netting.
Gary
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
g’Day all
Whilst the inevitable questions should be asked about the validity of information supplied by bird_bandin organisations about injury and death of birds caused by their own banding operations, it should be recognised that the said report deals only with mist netting. (see http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?c=11&cate=__10933 )
The minimal impacts of this relatively passive technique cannot be compared to the highly destructive impacts caused by c_annon_netting and the subsequent leg_fl_agging of our most vulnerable “small migratory wader species” where, after being subjected to these hideous research practices, most of the tagged birds almost certainly die on their next migration
For example, have a look at the wader photos, especially the Great Knot on the first page of this. http://www.globalflywaynetwork.com.au/ Expand the photos, look at the multiple fl_ags on both legs and ask yourself, could this impact on its ability to feed, migrate and breed?
Urgently needed is an “independent” study into the destructive impacts caused by c_annon_netting and leg_fl_agging especially addressing small migratory waders (Great Knot and smaller) and multiple ta_gging impacts.
Furthermore, an immediate three-year Australia moratorium c_annon_netting and leg_fl_agging should be implemented. This would provide the opportunity for all interested observers to participate and evaluate the impacts that will either expose the damage being done or put the matter to rest.
An immediate ban would enable independent field observers to seperate surviving individuals from the presence of recently fl_agged birds and avoid confusing results but to achieve this, it is imperative to instigate a ban now, before any of this season returning migrants are leg_fl_agged
Regards
Ian May PO Box 110 St Helens, Tasmania. 7216 Mob: 0428337956
Carl Clifford wrote:
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================