Re Banding trip to Buddigower Nature Reserve take 2

By Geoff Jones, on October 14th, 2014

In response to Harveys reply I need to apologise to Harvey about leaving the nets unattended as he has now said that the nets were not opened before they went off and set up camp and I have already sent a personal email to Harvey on that subject. But if you had read Harvey’s Blog here is an excerpt from it; ” When we arrived at Buddigower, Karen and I set to to get a few nets up before dusk, in the same area we had banded those four years previously, then went about the business of setting up camp” This quote is how I came to that conclusion, however it still does not change my point of view about banding birds in a local areas, again I ask for what purpose is it done? My personal thoughts are that a bird count done regularly by a local bird club will give you a considerable amount of information without putting the birds thru the trauma of being banded. Last Saturday afternoon I personally observed Sharp-tailed Sandpipers that had recently arrived and were vigorously feeding after their annual migration to our shores. They were feeding in one of the ponds near the Burrow Pits at the Western Treatment Plant and as they struggled to raise their legs in the soft mud I couldn’t help but think that if they had large leg flags on their feet and that if birds of prey were around, which is quite common at this site, it could be the difference between life and death for those birds. Most people now know that the population of waders are dramatically dropping as many local groups throughout Australian do numerous wader counts and that information is passed on to the appropriate people and/or organizations. So why should we continue to Net, Traumatize and in some cases kill or maim birds, all for so-called research? I for one think not! Kindest Regards Geoff Jones Barra Imaging — This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Birding-Aus mailing list
Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org

stephen

October 18, 2014 at 8:53 am

Ian, You have repeatedly expressed your concerns about bird banding on Birding-aus for several years now. In all those discussions you refer to data that supposedly indicate bird numbers are declining due to banding, leg flagging, cannon-netting etc. Yet when others on Birding-aus have repeatedly requested that you identify the data or photographs that you are referring to, or make them available, it is met with silence. How can we have a sensible discussion on this topic if you fail to produce scientifically-robust evidence in support of your claims? Even if the data that you are using aren’t scientifically-robust, it is still worth making them available to Birding-aus so that a discussion of the merits of the data and validity of the conclusions can occur. Stephen Ambrose Ryde NSW —–Original Message—– Ian May Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2014 8:31 AM Cc: geoff jones barra images; birding-aus@birding-aus.org 2 Thanks Peter. The line should read “5 attachments including two bands” Peter Shute wrote: Ian? What species was it? truck. endangered

birding

October 18, 2014 at 7:31 am

Thanks Peter. The line should read “5 attachments including two bands” Peter Shute wrote:

swiss7

October 17, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Ian, As I mentioned in my previous post, these kinds of debates/questions are important to raise now and again to encourage banders to reflect on what goals their effects are achieving. However, these sorts of emails are not particularly useful as they provide only opinions and emotions, rather than making a contribution based on evidence. Take your comparison of the effects of photography to bird banding. Whilst the effect of a photographer flushing a bird may appear to be minor to the perpetrator, the repeated effects of these sort of disturbances week after week by hundreds or thousands of photographers may have profound impacts individual bird’s perception of risk, resulting in changes in its behaviour that can affect how much it forages and subsequently its reproductive success. So far I have been ‘hand-waving’, but there are published studies, for example on European oystercatchers, that show direct evidence for this. Further, many studies have demonstrated very clearly that birds with greater perceived risk suffer negative physiological effects that can reduce survival via a range of mechanisms. No one is claiming that banding doesn’t have some impact on the particular individuals that are captured and banded, but frequent disturbances (including walking dogs, etc.) can have impact on tens or hundreds of individual birds each time a disturbance occurs, and, as a result, change behavioural patterns at a much larger scale. This effect should not be under-estimated, or brushed away with a feather duster. The arguments you put forward are also entirely restricted to waders, whereas the original posting was about a trip to mallee habitat. There are many good studies that can demonstrate there is very little long-term impact of banding on individual birds. In one of my research sites, we have tracked the same birds year-in year-out building nests, feeding young, and so on with no adverse effects. For example, of the 63 birds we colour-banded in the initial cohort in 2010, we resighted every single bird multiple times in subsequent years (they sometimes disappear for months or years, only to mysteriously return – with all appendages intact). Sure the capturing and banding events were stressful, but our priority is to minimise the impact of this, and I think our data suggests we do a very good job of it. I would be very surprised if banding shorebirds would make any contributions to the decline of waders. If you are concerned you could request the data from those involved in the studies and do an analysis on it to provide evidence either for or against this. Even better, why not fund (or raise money for) a scholarship for a graduate student to investigate this question in detail by performing experiments to get at the causal factors? I was asked by Steve Read for more information by listing published studies. For the purpose of promoting a constructive debate, I have pasted my reply below. One final point is that arguments based around the need for science to have immediate deliverable impacts (i.e. banding should help save birds) are extremely detrimental to the future of science (sadly this is the view of our current government). Almost all the scientific knowledge we have is built up from discovery science. This is research done to address what can appear as narrow goals, but is usually framed in a broader set of hypotheses. Thus, what we should not be asking if ‘banding will help save birds’, but rather if ‘banding will continue to contribute to the knowledge we need to help in the conservation of birds’. I think the answer to the latter is a resounding YES. I might close off by indulging in mentioning that while writing this reply, a Great horned owl has been calling outside my window. Last week it was a Western screech-owl calling from the same tree.

peter

October 17, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Is there any chance we could see the photo of the wader with five flags, Ian? What species was it? Can anyone tell me what the allowable limit is? Peter Shute Sent from my iPhone

October 17, 2014 at 3:02 pm

We are in full agreement about habitat protection however, no matter which way I look at it, I just cannot see how banding helps to save any bird. As a friend pointed out to me recently, comparing the impacts of call playback and bird photography with the adverse impacts of bird banding, canon netting, mist netting and leg flagging etc. is like comparing being hit with a feather duster compared to a speeding Mack truck. Recently I observed a photograph of a small wader with 5 flags and two bands. I have seen Curlew Sandpiper with 4 flags. There is a photograph circulating of flagged and banded Spoon-billed Sandpiper chicks. It might be nice to know everywhere they go but surely such an endangered small migratory bird should be protected to migrate unimpeded.. How can banding a Spoon-billed Sandpiper chick help save them. More likely, these birds are doomed because of their handling and banding. Many small waders populations are in decline. I remember when repeatable counts indicated most small wader populations were stable. Red Knots and Curlew Sandpiper were widespread and common. While obviously there are habitat protection issues too, dropping numbers of these species closely correlate with the period when canon netting and leg flagging commenced and the declining numbers correlate too. Just a coincidence? I don’t think so. A high percentage (not a small percentage as we have been asked to remember) of the Sanderling population in Southern Australia have been leg flagged and their declining numbers also correlate closely with numbers flagged. 12 months after flagging, retrap rates are minuscule and the lost birds cannot be logically explained. Ian May St Helens Tasmania ———————————————————————— g and Val Clancy wrote:

gclancy

October 14, 2014 at 9:00 pm

Hi all, I have been banding birds since 1971 and as suggested I do think carefully about the pros and cons of this activity. I get sad when I see people suggesting that we know all that we need to know from banding when that is patently not the case. We have only scratched the surface when it comes to our understanding of Australia’s birds and their movements. I am glad that people are compassionate enough to be concerned about the birds’ welfare as this is paramount in my thoughts as well but please direct your concerns where they really need to be directed – at the people clearing natural ecosystems, at people shooting ducks for sport, at people who have cats and dogs that are allowed to roam and kill our wildlife etc.. I know that some people have witnessed accidents during banding activities and this has coloured their view for life but the rare case where a bird suffers from banding should not mean that it is not a legitimate and humane activity. I hold an animal care and ethics approval for my banding and I am held accountable for any losses. People who do not like birds being banded are entitled to their opinion but, like Martin, please find out all you can about the positives before condemning the people who are giving large amounts of their own time and money to research the birds so that they can be saved. The winter movement of birds such as Grey Fantails, Golden Whistlers, Striated Pardalotes and other species from Tasmania and southern Australia to the north coast of New South Wales and southern Queensland is only now being recognised. We need more banders to track these movements not less banding. Remember banders will only ever band a small percentage of the population of any species but that percentage can provide essential data that cannot be gathered by observation alone. It was banding that proved that the formerly recognised two species of Silvereye in south-eastern Australia were in fact the one species but one type was of Tasmanian origin and the other of local origin. My banding research on the Eastern Osprey, Black-necked Stork, Beach Stone-curlew and Australian Pied Oystercatcher and others has provided essential data required for the management of these threatened species. Banding is not the problem it is an important part of the solution. 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—– Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:06 PM 2 this is a very interesting thread & I’ve learnt so much already just from a couple of posts, so thank you so far for these insights into banding. one species I believe which could reveal some interesting findings could be the local breeding canescens race of Black-winged Monarch, a species I’ve been doing much fieldwork on in recent years… one perplexing question for me is where do they winter when not in Australia?? of course some banding would also need to be done in PNG or wherever else we believe this race may winter… I truly wonder??? any ideas on doing such a project anyone?? cheers, martin cachard, cairns

mcachard

October 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm

this is a very interesting thread & I’ve learnt so much already just from a couple of posts, so thank you so far for these insights into banding. one species I believe which could reveal some interesting findings could be the local breeding canescens race of Black-winged Monarch, a species I’ve been doing much fieldwork on in recent years… one perplexing question for me is where do they winter when not in Australia?? of course some banding would also need to be done in PNG or wherever else we believe this race may winter… I truly wonder??? any ideas on doing such a project anyone?? cheers, martin cachard, cairns

October 14, 2014 at 11:56 am

Geoff, I think that the issues you raise are not as black-and-white as you perhaps perceive them. However, it is useful to encourage those that do band birds (as well people doing as any number of other activities) to occasionally reflect on what their aims are and what their personal motivation is in targetting those aims. It is much less useful to be confrontational and forming opinions without having gathered first-hand knowledge on the topic. In light of this, let me propose what I hope will be an impartial and constructive reflection on bird banding with a few points I hope you will find useful (in no particular order): 1. In Australia, I would venture to say that a large proportion (if not the majority) of birds that are banded are done so as part of a very targetted research study. Knowing the identity of individual birds is critical for developing an understanding of their life history, their evolutionary biology, and the conservation of species/communities. Without these identities, we cannot develop a clear understanding of the fine-scale causal effects of things such as behaviour, reproductive output, and consequently changes in population dynamics. Counting birds (combined with experimental treatments) can tell you a great deal about potential causes of changes in animal populations, but only detailed studies provide the linkages between the cause and the effect. 2. As far as I am aware, there is a move in progress to develop tools that can generate comparable metrics across different long-term studies. There are many sites that have been sampled for very long periods of time, and performing identical analyses across a range of these will be an powerful way of capturing temporal changes in population demography, structure, or even community processes over time. A classic example of this is the suite of studies that have shown the impacts of the disappearance and re-appearance of raptors (associated with the ban on DDT) on bird communities. 3. I really agree that banders should reflect on whether they have a measurable goal that they are working towards with their projects. This includes critically questioning when the last time they analysed or tracked the progress of their data towards these goals, whether they are collecting data at a scale that is going to allow them/someone to draw some conclusions from their data. What non-targetted banders (i.e. those that band all species in a community) may also want to consider is whether they should be sharing their data with others in order to facilitate scientific inquiry and generate broader value from their efforts/impacts on the birds. 4. One valuable contribution of long-terms studies has been to train students and new banders in the techniques required to become profficient at running their own study sites. This is a long apprentiship that not everyone passes. However, banders should also question whether they are providing enough opportunities for students to train effectively and comprehensively under them. 5. On a more political point – the bird banding scheme is well supported by the federal government, and has probably supported dozens if not hundreds of students in their research. WIthout a critical mass, we could easily see this great resource taken away from us. This would be a great loss to the scientific community. As a photographer, you might perhaps suggest that people within your community make an effort to inform themselves of the potential impacts of their activities on birds. Stress has a huge impact on birds, but is much more difficult to assess, measure or track. Using playback, lures, flash photography or even flushing birds can significantly impact their stress levels, on-par with being caught in a mist-net (what may seem an obviously different risk to you may not be so obvious to a bird), and have carry-over effects into breeding and eventually survival. On a closing note, it is important to remember that all research, no matter how basic or untargetted it might seem, is valuable. Studying animals in the wild has produced a wealth of knowledge that has had huge impact across many topics, ranging from computer game design to tracking stock markets. Scientific enquiry should be supported at all costs, and attacks on research programs currently underway in Australia will have terrible consequences for the future of science in this country.

markcarey82

October 14, 2014 at 11:28 am

Hi all, A good article that explains quite nicely why we should continue banding and why banding schemes are important! http://www.britishbirds.co.uk/article/bird-ringing-still-necessary/ Cheers, Mark

Birding-Aus

Re Banding trip to Buddigower Nature Reserve take 2

9 comments to Re Banding trip to Buddigower Nature Reserve take 2

Mailing List

Book Search

Meta