Good or bad PR? (1 Viewer)

James Emerson · Jan 2, 2015

I would be very surprised if the BTO did not have data about the number of casualties directly caused by ringing at CES sites, and one of the reasons for running them is to monitor increases and decreases in populations (separating out the causes of a change is more difficult).

Whilst accepting that part of the reason for raising your concerns here is to see what other people think, have you directed some of your concerns directly to the BTO? They might be able to put your mind at ease by providing some of the data that you mention? Without doing that much of the response here will at best be anecdote, and otherwise just "what if" type suggestions.

Regards,
James

Qingcol said:
Hi John,
I'm really talking about the rise and fall, at the constant effort site, affecting the quality of the data. You are not factoring in the unknown net casualties, plus the disruptive effect. and physical presence of the nets, tending to aid predators like Sparrowhawk in their particular hunting style. This temporary but regular netting (In my view) is more than enough to increase the density of that predator visiting the site, in the short term, and in the long term in much the same way as a farmer's field of wasted maize will sustain a higher than normal Corvid population, until they move out of that area with a taste for fresh eggs in spring. I agree that over a larger area, the arms race would tend to keep in balance. But at the sites, the songbirds would gradually decrease. I would think that by now, there should be enough data from constant effort sites, to prove or disprove this theory?
Colin

King Edward · Jan 3, 2015

There was a guest post by Dave Leech (BTO) on Mark Avery's blog recently, relating to many of the questions raised here. There was a comment underneath by a reader named Tony Phillips asking some of the same questions about e.g. mortality and the value of ringing 100,000+ Bue Tits in a single year, to which Dave Leech gave a detailed reply.

Qingcol · Jan 3, 2015

James Emerson said:
I would be very surprised if the BTO did not have data about the number of casualties directly caused by ringing at CES sites, and one of the reasons for running them is to monitor increases and decreases in populations (separating out the causes of a change is more difficult).

Whilst accepting that part of the reason for raising your concerns here is to see what other people think, have you directed some of your concerns directly to the BTO? They might be able to put your mind at ease by providing some of the data that you mention? Without doing that much of the response here will at best be anecdote, and otherwise just "what if" type suggestions.

Regards,
James

Hi James,
I think that the value that comes from an open discussion on BirdForum, in the main is transparency. Any frank exchange of views, from both sides of the argument, can do no harm at all to birds, or bird populations. Many involved in ringing will simply adopt the moral high ground and choose not to take part, naturally the more you are involved the more you tend to push your own agenda, how often do the experts get things wrong? Are they really saying things like (We need to keep on ringing thousands of Blue Tits, in case there is a drop in Blue Tit numbers) by the time the data was processed there would be nothing they could do about it, but many Blue Tits would have suffered, or been killed to produce that data.
Colin

Qingcol · Jan 3, 2015

PaulD said:
If you have concerns about the usefulness of bird ringing then I would suggest the article "Is bird ringing still necessary" by Ian Newton in the October 2014 issue of British Birds (BB 107:572-574) is worth reading.

Many Thanks' Paul, I did not subscribe 2014 I will try and get hold of a copy.
Colin

trw · Jan 3, 2015

iraqbabbler said:
It's not just you. I commend you for your post; well done :t:

and I dare say if the poor birds in question could have their say, they would do the same too o

I too echo your sentiments.
This subject has been raised before and it nearly caused World War 3!

trw · Jan 4, 2015

Qingcol said:
Will the people using their IT skills to attack me for the content of this thread on other social media, leaving me with no right of reply please have the guts to put it in to print on this thread, for all to judge, or at least have the decency to allow me to reply on that media.
Colin

I trust your posting has shamed the sad little men sitting behind their keyboards and they have stopped their cowardly attacks.
Pathetic!

Qingcol · Jan 4, 2015

From the very start I have realised, threads like this one will never change things, a hundred threads would have about as much impact as, a letter to the ringing office suggesting that they might consider a risk assessment policy that valued a single birds life more than a single unit of data, where ever possible, with the exception of 'studies deemed to be vital for the future conservation of that species' might be good PR. Sad thing is, they don't appear to be that worried about 'public' opinion ever being focused against them, in that respect, they are probably right, certainly if where I live is at all representative, you get far more respect, if you are out with a gun shooting at things for fun, if walking around the estuary with binoculars, looking at birds you are viewed with suspicion, or in much the same way you would check the sole of your shoe, if you thought you had just stepped in something nasty. If change ever comes, it will eventually come from within, in the meantime the value of the thread should be, to try and explain, that the argument is not just a simple (For, or against) this hopefully, will assist readers with an open mind, to reach their own conclusions.
Colin

Qingcol · Jan 4, 2015

pratincol said:
I trust your posting has shamed the sad little men sitting behind their keyboards and they have stopped their cowardly attacks.
Pathetic!

Yes, I think that has been sorted out, one even allowed me a reply. Although I do hate this type of personal attack, that is then quickly deleted (I always make copies right away)
Colin

Qingcol · Jan 5, 2015

One of the favourite excuses used by the ringing establishment to explain, mild irritations like this thread, are, that we must be (Failed or disillusioned trainees) My chosen title would be (Old fashioned, disillusioned ex-ringer) Even over fifty years ago the training period could be daunting, I was lucky enough 'not' to be related to a ringer, or live in a strategic, though remote location. My training started in 1962 I received my A permit and pulli endorsement around the early 1970s I still have my training logs, including the details of thousands of birds ringed, thousands of mist-net extractions and hundreds of wing-formula taken, for those nine years of training. I remained active for at least twenty five + years, initially with a well known ringing group; in the process, meeting some wonderfully dedicated ringers, who really did put the bird's welfare first, sadly not all, there appeared to be a breed immerging, even then, full of clinical self-confidence, approaching arrogance, with absolutely no real regard for bird welfare, whose only real concern (To be considered Top Banana!) I would often be fiercely criticised for releasing stress prone species, like Bullfinches at the nets without processing, or releasing captive birds that we had no realistic hope of processing in time, to release before night fall.In those early days it always involved a lot of soul searching on my part, if things went wrong, and I'm certain that I was not alone in this respect. Truth is, like everyone else I was intoxicated with the idea, that we were breaking new ground, discovering new, exiting things, the slow realisation that modern, developing trends were having a detrimental effect on the individual birds, and populations welfare, eventually convinced me to give up participating in something I loved. I could be, justifiably accused of being wildly out of date, and I'm definitely in no position to preach to would be ringers, but I make no apologies for attempting to pass on my limited experience to those who are contemplating being involved.
Colin

Qingcol · Jan 7, 2015

I think it's a shame that my only driver has to be, to counter accusations made off thread, one of the mildest being (That I post inflammatory remarks) when there are possibilities for a rich and varied debate, ranging from (The value of, the multiple colour ringing for tiny migratory birds like, Chiffchaff and Wood Warbler to study 'normal' behaviour) to (intervention to the natural fluctuations in bird populations, occurring on a time scale far beyond our human life span studies) Life is one long learning curve, I for one, still have an open mind, more than willing to listen and learn, I appeal to those who are not bound by the party whip to contribute, failing to do so will give some the impression, there is something to hide. Of course there are many that will always apply words like 'offensive' or 'inflammatory' to anything that dares to question them. My concerns are voiced on an open thread, tucked away under the heading (Ringing and Banding) subject to moderators, hardly designed to enflame 'public' opinion.

Jamie Dunning · Jan 7, 2015

I haven't read the entirety of the above conversation, they're all the same.
However, on the whole and as someone who does ring birds, I agree with the first few comments.
Ringing is an important and necessary tool available to ornithologists. It's not a Sunday afternoon hobby for those who collect ticks, photos, whatever.
I half feel that all ringers should be marginally sympathetic to those who are anxious (not militant) about the ringing scheme and how it affects birds involved in the studies. after all we all want the same thing, and although the stress levels are minimal (thus why getting your license takes such a long time!) there is a degree of stress caused initially, and to those outside of the science it does look quite invasive at first. Bird ringers should be conscious scientists, but at the same time, those who reply on other methods should celebrate what ringing can show us as 'ringers' should realise that sometimes there is no replacement for good old fashioned bird watching.
Trophy shots are only enjoyed by a few and even fewer in the ringer community are fond of them.

Tarsiger · Jan 7, 2015

Can someone explain trophy photographs to me? My ringing was all pre-digital era and I only have one b&w picture of an Aquatic Warbler taken by another ringer.Its the only photo I remember from ten years ringing.Had I had a digital camera I would probably have photo'd the Savis Warbler I caught to support description and measurements etc. Is a trapped bird , having been processed, being harmed by rattling off a few pictures?
Russ

Qingcol · Jan 7, 2015

Tarsiger said:
Can someone explain trophy photographs to me? My ringing was all pre-digital era and I only have one b&w picture of an Aquatic Warbler taken by another ringer.Its the only photo I remember from ten years ringing.Had I had a digital camera I would probably have photo'd the Savis Warbler I caught to support description and measurements etc. Is a trapped bird , having been processed, being harmed by rattling off a few pictures?
Russ

The original question 'Is it good, or bad PR' The trophy image is an image that is just that, a trophy! It has no value at all to assist its ID or to show interesting plumage/bare-parts details. Most ringing takes place far away from the public gaze, sometimes these images are the only window into the activity people get to see, although most would realise that it was, over and above any scientific purposes' plus it likely that more than one handling and selfie was involved, leading to the impression that the bird was held for longer than it should have been as part of, just another country pursuit (Is this good, or bad public relations?)
Colin

Qingcol · Jan 7, 2015

Jamie Dunning said:
(I haven't read the entirety of the above conversation, they're all the same)
.

I rest my case!

John Morgan · Jan 7, 2015

Tarsiger said:
Can someone explain trophy photographs to me?

They are what it says on the label. Sometimes the trophy is only of personal interest., and I admit to having a few that I look at occasionally, as one might look at pics of Xmas or a birthday party.

In the old days (and still in some countries) the practice was to kill and preserve the skins of unusual species, as a record of their occurrence. As recently as the 1980's records of vagrants were only acceptable in USA and Canada if accompanied by specimens. In 1968 I found the first White-winged Black Tern for Canada in New Brunswick. Local ornithologists deferred to my request not to collect it - good descriptions and, crucially, photos showing features such as black,under-wing coverts and white retrices were available - but they expressed doubt that a national first would get by on this evidence.

True to form, Earl W. Godfrey, the national recorder, rejected the record on the grounds that,"if they'd really thought it was a WWBT they'd have shot it"

I confess I probably caused disturbance to the Black Tern flock while getting these trophy photos 8-P However, Can. Field Nat. published the record with the pics, so all was not totally in vain.

Jamie Dunning · Jan 8, 2015

Qingcol said:
One of the favourite excuses used by the ringing establishment to explain, mild irritations like this thread, are, that we must be (Failed or disillusioned trainees) My chosen title would be (Old fashioned, disillusioned ex-ringer) Even over fifty years ago the training period could be daunting, I was lucky enough 'not' to be related to a ringer, or live in a strategic, though remote location. My training started in 1962 I received my A permit and pulli endorsement around the early 1970s I still have my training logs, including the details of thousands of birds ringed, thousands of mist-net extractions and hundreds of wing-formula taken, for those nine years of training. I remained active for at least twenty five + years, initially with a well known ringing group; in the process, meeting some wonderfully dedicated ringers, who really did put the bird's welfare first, sadly not all, there appeared to be a breed immerging, even then, full of clinical self-confidence, approaching arrogance, with absolutely no real regard for bird welfare, whose only real concern (To be considered Top Banana!) I would often be fiercely criticised for releasing stress prone species, like Bullfinches at the nets without processing, or releasing captive birds that we had no realistic hope of processing in time, to release before night fall.In those early days it always involved a lot of soul searching on my part, if things went wrong, and I'm certain that I was not alone in this respect. Truth is, like everyone else I was intoxicated with the idea, that we were breaking new ground, discovering new, exiting things, the slow realisation that modern, developing trends were having a detrimental effect on the individual birds, and populations welfare, eventually convinced me to give up participating in something I loved. I could be, justifiably accused of being wildly out of date, and I'm definitely in no position to preach to would be ringers, but I make no apologies for attempting to pass on my limited experience to those who are contemplating being involved.
Colin

You have no case to rest Colin, I was responding to this.
I think it's brave and if a little extreme I agree to an extent.
I find that it' less the ringers but group mentalities that put the data before welfare and agree that the BTO should be seen to be addressing this publicly.
as I say in my post above, no one should introduce themselves as a ringer, and if they do they're missing the point. it's a scientific method to be kept in an ornithologists arsenal, and one of many for that.

Qingcol · Jan 8, 2015

Jamie Dunning said:
You have no case to rest Colin, I was responding to this.
I think it's brave and if a little extreme I agree to an extent.
I find that it' less the ringers but group mentalities that put the data before welfare and agree that the BTO should be seen to be addressing this publicly.
as I say in my post above, no one should introduce themselves as a ringer, and if they do they're missing the point. it's a scientific method to be kept in an ornithologists arsenal, and one of many for that.

You have my greatest respect Jamie! It's 'you' that shows bravery, by simply contributing to the debate, not afraid to voice, or confront any possible concerns, rather than tow the safe party line.
Colin

Adam W · Jan 8, 2015

Jamie Dunning said:
Ringing is an important and necessary tool available to ornithologists. It's not a Sunday afternoon hobby for those who collect ticks, photos, whatever.

I don't see why the first part of that stops the second part from being possible though. I absolutely agree that there are genuine scientific reasons for ringing but surely at least one of the factors and dare I suggest the main factor for some in doing it is that they enjoy it.
I can't stress enough that I have no problem at all with ringing even if people are doing it for enjoyment as a hobby but there's no doubt in my mind that recreation and trophy hunting are strong elements within the ringing world and I don't say that as a critisism at all I just think it would be nice if some of the people involved were honest enough to admit it rather than hiding behind the fact that there may be a scientific reason for doing it.

Qingcol · Jan 8, 2015

Adam W said:
I don't see why the first part of that stops the second part from being possible though. I absolutely agree that there are genuine scientific reasons for ringing but surely at least one of the factors and dare I suggest the main factor for some in doing it is that they enjoy it.
I can't stress enough that I have no problem at all with ringing even if people are doing it for enjoyment as a hobby but there's no doubt in my mind that recreation and trophy hunting are strong elements within the ringing world and I don't say that as a critisism at all I just think it would be nice if some of the people involved were honest enough to admit it rather than hiding behind the fact that there may be a scientific reason for doing it.

Hi Adam,
Your position sounds perfectly balanced and measured, can I ask you, if a percentage for casualties, directly attributed to trapping and processing could be calculated (The threats, plus the pitfalls in obtaining a representative ratio discussed earlier in the thread) how high would it have to be, for you to change that position?
Colin

Adam W · Jan 8, 2015

Qingcol said:
Hi Adam,
Your position sounds perfectly balanced and measured, can I ask you, if a percentage for casualties, directly attributed to trapping and processing could be calculated (The threats, plus the pitfalls in obtaining a representative ratio discussed earlier in the thread) how high would it have to be, for you to change that position?
Colin

I guess my honest answer to that would be I dont know, you may or may not not that I am a shooter so perhaps not in the best position to be judging others. I suppose theres a case for saying one death from ringing is one too many but theres probably but also a case for some deaths might be worth it if its for the greater good but to be honest I dont really know enough about it tobsay where that line should be.
As I said previously I have no problem at all with ringing even if there are some negatives even perhaps going as far as the death of some birds ,I just wish some ringers would be more honest about why they really do what they do. It seems a bit too easy to hide behind the scientific research side of things.

Good or bad PR? (1 Viewer)

Norwich Birder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread