Impacts of bird ringing (threads merged) (3 Viewers)

I don't think you quite understand all the facts Keithmills61
The most useful data obtained by ringing does not require the birds to be recovered!

If you are interested, a example is explained here.

keithmills61 said:

please dont get me wrong i am not against ringing of birds full stop, i just quiery why some species continue to need the distress and disturbance of this really quite intrusive procedure when i feel there is very little to be gained by it for that particular species, i think an informed and researched argument should be put forward as to why ringing needs to be carried out on a species by species basis before licensing should be allowed for it to go ahead.

Click to expand...

keithmills61 said:

bird ringing is just so unrepresentative of whats really going on in most populations, do people really think that the hundreds of wild (ringed)goshawks killed by gamekeepers every year are reported? dont think so. so the odd one genuinely recovered really isnt representative of whats acctually going on , is it? bird ringing is a largely pointless and mostly needless "hobby" where the few good, usefull results do not outway the amount of negatives involved.

Click to expand...

If the above shows anything then I don't think Keithmills61 you understand your own comments. Pleased you at last found the correct thread to address your queries/contradictions.

(o)<

Jane Turner said:

I don't think you quite understand all the facts Keithmills61
The most useful data obtained by ringing does not require the birds to be recovered!

If you are interested, a example is explained here.

Click to expand...

i probably dont understand ALL the facts but do see many many flaws in the current bird ringing trend and no argument will convince me that the ammount of birds ringed is justifiable for the ammount of data obtained, i have read the article you provided and am not knocking the bto as an organisation, in fact i have worked closely with them on the rehabilitation of various birds ive dealt with but continue to believe that for most bto ringers its a "hobby" like stamp collecting where it is a competition with your contemporaries as to how many, and what species youve managed to "bag" then compairing notes on returns.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe there is value in monitoring bird populations, and if you do, how soon and with what level of confidence do you want to have "heads up" that there is a change happening.

keithmills61 said:

i probably dont understand ALL the facts but do see many many flaws in the current bird ringing trend and no argument will convince me that the ammount of birds ringed is justifiable for the ammount of data obtained, i have read the article you provided and am not knocking the bto as an organisation, in fact i have worked closely with them on the rehabilitation of various birds ive dealt with but continue to believe that for most bto ringers its a "hobby" like stamp collecting where it is a competition with your contemporaries as to how many, and what species youve managed to "bag" then compairing notes on returns.

Click to expand...

Can I ask Keithmills61 if the bird in your avatar belongs to you or from the above quote you keep captive any birds? I actually ring birds, but don't collect them not captively or competitively speaking.

Black Wheatear said:

Can I ask Keithmills61 if the bird in your avatar belongs to you or from the above quote you keep captive any birds? I actually ring birds, but don't collect them not captively or competitively speaking.

Click to expand...

the bird in my avatar do'snt belong to me but i do have six pairs of captive breeding barbary falcons amongst several other pairs, i am an active falcon breeder and falconer and realise this may make me unpopular, but it do's give me a certain edge over some people when it comes to raptor identification! and certain other "inside" understanding of matters relating to raptor "politics in the bird world. if people really find me distastefull for keeping these birds then i will reluctantly remove myself from the forum now! however please understand that i am an avid birder just like the rest of you and love wildlife in generall.

Keith, if you have read the BTO page, also take a look at this paper.


This is another that might interest you here .

keithmills61 said:

the bird in my avatar do'snt belong to me but i do have six pairs of captive breeding barbary falcons amongst several other pairs, i am an active falcon breeder and falconer and realise this may make me unpopular, but it do's give me a certain edge over some people when it comes to raptor identification! and certain other "inside" understanding of matters relating to raptor "politics in the bird world. if people really find me distastefull for keeping these birds then i will reluctantly remove myself from the forum now! however please understand that i am an avid birder just like the rest of you and love wildlife in generall.

Click to expand...

Okay, then read the rest of my posts on this thread. Tolerance you will find is given as well as expected, so my advice is don't throw stones at others who also believe they are giving to their love of nature! Apologies accepted.

:t:

John Morgan said:

I see you have finally decided to stop sniping from the bushes and post on the correct forum for this kind of discussion.

I'm also delighted to see that you have come clean and owned up to you ignorance concerning ringing. I refer to your statement,"I agree that in the beginning a certain amount of ringing was needed for conservation, but after all the years of it being used I fail to see the reasons why it still continues." The reason why you fail is that you do not bother to inform yourself about the current state of thought within ringing, especially concerning its usefulness in understanding conservation requirements for quite common species. The House Sparrow is a classic example of a species that seemed so invulnerable to problems the BTO decided back in the '60s to stop ringing them. The loss of data that 30 years of ringing could have given is regarded as a tradgedy for this species conservation.

I happen to agree with you that the fitting of multiple color rings seems excessive. There are bicolored and alphanumeric-inscribed rings that could be used instead, and so fewer would be needed.

I see you are feeding us the old line about stress again. Did you bother to follow up the references to papers that were quoted here? By doing so you will find that research in ringing is very much interested in the reaction of the ringed bird - for reasons that have been explained several times on threads like this. Perhaps you didn't see them - or more likely didn't want to see them. In a word, if ringed birds fail to perform normally it is bad news for the research - therefore we need to know if this happens, and with what frequency.

Click to expand...

Hello again John,

I have not sniped at you as you so 'nicely' put it, neither was I the first to bring the ringing topic up on the "disturbance" thread. To be honest I always purposely keep away from this part of the Forum because I don't agree with ringing. To my mind that's always made more sense rather than to come here and raise an issue which I'll only get shot down in flames about simply because of my beliefs. I only came on yesterday after seeing the title and having voiced my thoughts about it last week as well as putting a small piece on the 'Impacts of Bird Ringing' thread on this board.

You can believe what you like, but I don't consider myself as being ignorant about ringing at all. Ignorance is not reading up enough on a topic, but I've not done badly there and as I said above, I can see their was a possible need for ringing for the sake of conservation when ringing was first introduced, the need for certain species for reasons since too. However, now after all these years I truly feel it is done to excess at such times when the Birds are most vulnerable and if you can truthfully believe it causes the Birds no stress at all then I can only think you like the hobby - call it what you will - too much and possibly don't always stop to consider the Birds first. Yes, I followed up the references to papers that were quoted, but am not able to hang onto their every word as being the absolute truth.

You stated that the BTO stopped the ringing of House Sparrows back in the 60's as they were considered invulnerable, yet DEFRA are now shooting them!!! How is that allowed when they are in such decline?!

With respect John, you keep going on about me being ignorant, but after so long ringing are you sure it's not you that is too set in your ways to see anyone else's point of view now? After all it isn't me alone here at BF that feels as I do. I'm so pleased we agree on the over-use of rings per Bird, though I do wish you'd have admitted that much on the "disturbance" thread. What happens about that now though, will you kindly approach the BTO with your thoughts please? I'd sincerely like to think so.

Sue.

keithmills61 said:

we know enough about most species without having to trap them or invade thier nests just to confirm what we allready know!

Click to expand...

Is this from a falconer's point of view?

Micheal

Sue Wright said:

You stated that the BTO stopped the ringing of House Sparrows back in the 60's as they were considered invulnerable, yet DEFRA are now shooting them!!! How is that allowed when they are in such decline?!
Sue.

Click to expand...

Yes, BTO discouraged ringing house sparrows with penalties - more in a mo.

Are DEFRA really shooting them ? Still ? Did they ever - or did they encourage their control when they were abundant in much the same way that Mao launched a campaign against birds in China about 1960 ? I find that hard to believe of DEFRA, even of "the most incompetent ministry there ever was, bar none". For a start, DEFRA wouldn't actively involve itself in something like that except on their own premises. Even there, they would engage contractors because their own staff would not have the proper training and comics, sorry, typo, certificates. They would then not admit that any cull had anything to do with them.

In any case, DEFRA's activities bear no relation to what ringers are doing. Indeed ringers are providing some of the information that may be used to try to prevent DEFRA's actions.

Back to the spugs :
Ringing in general continues to yield useful information because the situation is not stable, is constantly changing. Even if, for certain species, we think we know a lot (questionable), the situation may change in an unexpected way. John Morgan's example is a classic. One ringer told me that in the 60's they used to take everything else from the nets and then lift the pockets open gently so all the sparrows - often dozens, were freed. Potential information on population declines that occurred thereafter was lost. This is a classic example of "we don't know what we don't know" - so we have no idea if we might have gathered important information. However I can say that we still don't understand house sparrow declines - there are a huge number of question marks over why ? so we don't really know what to do.

Consider - about 1990 many farms in East Lothian saw massive declines in house sparrow. On my own farm c.150 went down to c.3. After several years they started to recover to well over 50 today. I attributed this to the end of keeping cattle. That change in practice occurred on many E.Lothian farms. Then I found out that two of my neighbours who had not stopped keeping cattle suffered similar patterns of decline. One lost their sparrows completely, with a few returning in the last year or so. All that time their stock husbandry remained much the same. The other saw more or less exactly the same pattern as me (even though cattle were later removed - 1998 - but some sheep, hens and occasional pigs have been there).

Another example of unexpected changes has been seen with blackcap. This warbler has recently started wintering in Britain in quite significant numbers. Ringing information has shown these are not British breeders. They have migrated from west central Europe - typically Germany. Our breeding birds still winter in Iberia. This kind of information is important in identifying what management is required to protect these birds. Despite birds wintering here, our breeders are still entirely dependent on Iberia, so we must worry about conditions there (and vice versa). The Germans must now consider the UK regarding their breeding population (and vice versa).

Ringing of all species, even those that we know a lot about the population biology for, provides a continual picture of what is important for them. For some kinds of information the only alternative is the nest record scheme, which is equally valuable but perhaps more intrusive. Combined the two schemes provide a cross check on each other - validation of the data increases our confidence in it. This year I expect to see low proportions of young birds in our ringing results. Why - terrible summer weather has perhaps affected breeding. Am I right ? How bad ? Which species ?

On the latter point I suspect yellowhammer and skylark have been particularly badly affected. I would like the politicians holding the purse strings to help with conservation efforts on those species. How can we persuade them ? For yellowhammer we will get ringing data - hard facts to show them. For skylark we will not (we are not good at catching them).

Then again - maybe my expectations are wrong (I hope so). Ringing will tell us from the proportion of young birds caught. It is impossible to age yellowhammer and most small birds without catching them. Once you have caught them and aged them, you put on a ring so you can identify them again. That eliminates the chance of counting a biased sample of the same birds twice. For example, it is not unlikely that young, inexperienced birds might be more likely to get caught again, giving the impression of a higher proportion of young birds than is really the case. Then there is all the other information that being able to identify a bird allows - movement, changes in body condition, validating ageing and sexing methods, age ranges within the population (most small birds cannot be aged specifically after their first full moult).

Yes, these research methods are intrusive. What cost-benefit balance to choose is entirely subjective. Yes, it is an enjoyable hobby, which is a danger in itself. Ringers (I have only just started training having been an assistant for several years) are taught to put the bird first. Observations I have made while doing one particular BTO project have caused me to ask the BTO to re-examine one aspect of that project. By next season I expect to have further advice on that. The BTO is not going to reject a re-design of the data collection outright. They may seek better information from a better designed study.

I hope we all question our own activities all the time. Your input is a valuable reminder to stay on the ball, to think. I hope we don't need that reminder, but I wouldn't presume to ask you just to trust us Six rings on a bird is excessive. Could you try to note the combinations, presuming it is a colour ringed bird, and report it directly to the BTO ringing unit noting your concern ? *the latter is necessary in case the record is dealt with by inexperienced or temporary office staff who are not aware of all rules for field work.

Mike.

Keith.

I can understand (if not agree with) people who think birds should not be ringed, because birds should not be handled, though I find it hard to take such arguments from people who keep birds in captivity.

People who think that birds should not be ringed because the information gained is not useful are on decidedly dodgy ground

Here is the link for the above paper and a few others that report on the conservational value of rinigng.

AS I said disagree with ringing on grounds of your personal values by all means, but please don't try and use lack of conservational value as a means to justify your personal view.

http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a.pdf

S.R. Baillie G. Boobyer C.M. Perrins A. Brenchley D.M. Bryant S.J. Ormerod M.M. Rehfisch M.L. Tasker J.D. Wilson 1999 The conservation uses of ringing data. Conclusions of the JNCC/BTO Workshop Ringing and Migration 19 (Supplement) S119-S127,

Here are some of the other papers on the subject

citrinella said:

Are DEFRA really shooting them ? Still ? Did they ever - .

Click to expand...

No Mike, I think she's being very naughty and deliberately misleading by conflating two totally different things. Defra don't shoot anything, they just licence other people to do so as an exemption from the usual law. I think she's probably referring to the Defra link I mposted a few days ago, on licences issued, which showed licences issued to shoot sparrows. But it's not like people are just going out and shooting them like they do woodpigeons! Sue knows this, or she should if she bothered to "read up". No, when Defra licences people to shoot sparrows, it's because one is trapped inside ASDA and is crapping on the fruit and veg, or one has got into an aerospace factory and is contaminating bearings, or a pair has nested in a food preparation area - it is generally only for health and safety reasons. And if it was a peregrine falcon trapped inside an ASDA then I'm afraid that that would get a bullet too, as health and saftey comes before bird legislation, no matter what the rarity of the bird (ASDA PR considerations aside).

Sue Wright said:

I'm so pleased we agree on the over-use of rings per Bird,

Click to expand...

You don't want any rings on birds though - so 1 ring is an "over-use" to you.

I think opinions such as yours, while you're entitled to them, will always be uninformed unless you have been involved in ringing for a while yourself, as only then will you maybe accept the value of the data obtained and the nature of the "stress" and "disturbance" involved. Because no matter how often you're told by people who do know, you don't accept it.

Your case would be given more credibility if you could dig up a few ringers who have been involved to C permit level or above but then retired from the scheme on the grounds you state - they thought it was pointless and unjustified.

But somehow I doubt you'll find many.

The ringing scheme isn't perfect, but in essence the activity of ringing birds is sound science and the formal skill requirements of ringers means that welfare standards are extremely high.

Do the RSPCA support ringing?

Sue Wright said:

Hello again John,
With respect John, you keep going on about me being ignorant, but after so long ringing are you sure it's not you that is too set in your ways to see anyone else's point of view now? After all it isn't me alone here at BF that feels as I do. I'm so pleased we agree on the over-use of rings per Bird, though I do wish you'd have admitted that much on the "disturbance" thread. What happens about that now though, will you kindly approach the BTO with your thoughts please? I'd sincerely like to think so.
Sue.

Click to expand...

Ignorant?

Sue Wright said:

I'm so pleased you raised this disgraceful issue Sandra, a bit like the Goose that was worried terribly by a tracking device on it's back and desperately trying to get to it. Let those who commit such vile acts be the ones to wear them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and see how they get on and if they still agree with it all!!! Good for you in stopping to think it all out Terry, but the sad part is there is so much joy derived from it - and it certainly isn't from the Birds! We've been ringing Birds for far too long now and someone has to bring a halt to it all soon surely! Sue.

Click to expand...

Yep, and very personal too! You expect to be treated seriously when you attack others in such a strong and personal way?

Jane Turner said:

AS I said disagree with ringing on grounds of your personal values by all means, but please don't try and use lack of conservational value as a means to justify your personal view.

Click to expand...

Lets hope you read and agree with Jane's comment. Respect and tolerance for other opinions doesn't seem to figure in your language, so why expect any in return. Sad you can't debate without indulging your obvious generalised bad feelings for ringing and ringers.

Firetail said:

Ignorant?

Click to expand...

What's ignorant about that for goodness sake? I was giving John a lot more respect than he ever gives me. You yourself seem only capable of putting on one-liner comments to folk FT because you can't bear it when someone dares to criticise your 'hobby'. I'm at least sticking to my principles but also listening along the way just in case I've been mislead in the past.

Firetail said:

Yep, and very personal too! You expect to be treated seriously when you attack others in such a strong and personal way?

Click to expand...

Nothing personal about that comment at all, I was replying to Sandra who agreed with me and I still think it's wicked to make any animal wear such devices for the whole of it's life. I doubt you'd like it for yours, me either!

Firetail said:

Lets hope you read and agree with Jane's comment. Respect and tolerance for other opinions doesn't seem to figure in your language, so why expect any in return. Sad you can't debate without indulging your obvious generalised bad feelings for ringing and ringers.

Click to expand...

I always read Jane's comments, her links too, she at least has more manners than you.. who won't debate, but would sooner 'spit' remarks at people because of their beliefs and entice ringing posters not to comment to those asking questions!

Sue.

citrinella said:

Yes, these research methods are intrusive. What cost-benefit balance to choose is entirely subjective. Yes, it is an enjoyable hobby, which is a danger in itself. Ringers (I have only just started training having been an assistant for several years) are taught to put the bird first. Observations I have made while doing one particular BTO project have caused me to ask the BTO to re-examine one aspect of that project. By next season I expect to have further advice on that. The BTO is not going to reject a re-design of the data collection outright. They may seek better information from a better designed study.

I hope we all question our own activities all the time. Your input is a valuable reminder to stay on the ball, to think. I hope we don't need that reminder, but I wouldn't presume to ask you just to trust us Six rings on a bird is excessive. Could you try to note the combinations, presuming it is a colour ringed bird, and report it directly to the BTO ringing unit noting your concern ? *the latter is necessary in case the record is dealt with by inexperienced or temporary office staff who are not aware of all rules for field work.

Mike.

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

Thank you very much indeed for taking the time and patience in your reply, if all pro ringers were to respond to us in that way they might just have a far better chance of getting points across. Mostly all I've met with so far is being referred to as being 'ignorant' and I'm not. I try hard to read posts such as yours to see the reasons for the on-going ringing that to me appears unnecessary, but if pro ringers only ever call me, and all those like me, ignorant then we'll always find it hard to go further in learning.

Your penultimate paragraph was good to read and lets me think that you are at least showing yourself to be caring and considering the Birds and asking questions from the BTO yourself.

The following sentences <<"I hope we all question our own activities all the time. Your input is a valuable reminder to stay on the ball, to think.">> were a delight to read and give me hope that at least not all ringers are too quick to be on the defensive side. I shall read all your post through again and give thought to any/all parts that concern me most.

Re the excessive rings, I'm hoping that my husband still has a photo of one of the Common Terns that had them, if so I will indeed try to note the combinations and pass them onto the BTO ringing unit.

Thanks again Mike, but above all thank you for your respectful manner in responding.

Sue.

Sue Wright said:

I still think it's wicked to make any animal wear such devices for the whole of it's life.

Sue.

Click to expand...

and perhaps this is what the debate boils down to and why it becomes so acrimonious? - a case of 'science' - V - 'morality'? One perspective claims to argue from an apparently objective position ie. the value of scientific research for conservation purposes (not withstanding personal gains such as self-knowledge, enjoyment of handling/observing) and the other, making no pretensions of objectivity, argues from a basic and IMO very understandable compassionate response to an activity that on the surface looks cruel, as simple as that. Birds tangled up in nets, cumbersome looking collars, large garish labeling on wings, disturbance at nests etc etc. It may NOT be cruel, but it looks it and it's this perception of cruelty that the 'defenders' of 'science' needs to address. How so? By proof that no suffering is involved? By arguing that any suffering is offset by the scientific merits? The first argument does not convince prima facia with no further debate, simply because to some people ringing just looks cruel, period. The second argument, ie. on scientific grounds, will do little to change the visual impacts of ringing that lead Sue and others to regard the activity as overly interventionist and a cruel way to treat wildlife. I'm not sure these two positions in the extreme are reconcilable and these ringing debates seem to go round in circles to try and make them so.

A middle ground perhaps is acknowledgment on both 'sides', that

a) Ringing/misting/banding can result in injury/suffering/disturbance
b) Scientific data is an essential component of species protection/conservation

The central issue then, is one of balance IMO -

Is the extent/frequency of ringing, the number of licenced ringers and the methods used, justifiable against the benefits of conservation?

In the face of what appears to the uninitiated but moral minded, a cruel means of gathering scientific data, the onus is on the ringing fraternity to prove that

a) No more than the bare minimum ie. that which is absolutely necessary for conservation purposes, is carried out - general 'scientific research' for future use may not be an adequate appeasement for those concerned about the welfare of birds.

b) That the number of rings, size of collars etc do not hinder the normal lifestyle pattern and survival of individual birds, such as making them more prone to predation (by for example, effecting mobility, targeted as a ''marked'' individual within a flock etc), more likely to be isolated from a group, mating ritual, pecking order etc

Unfortunately, even if both a) and b) could be proven it would not change the perception, based simply on what some people see in the field, that gathering scientific data using rings, collars etc still looks cruel, so to them, it is.

deborah4; said:

A middle ground perhaps is acknowledgment on both 'sides', that

a) Ringing/banding can result in injury/suffering/disturbance
b) Scientific data is an essential component of species protection/conservation

The central issue then, is one of balance IMO -

Is the extent/frequency of ringing, the number of licenced ringers and the methods used, justifiable against the benefits of conservation?

Click to expand...

That would boil it down pretty effectively.

The argument in support of ringing is that the disturbance is minimal - there are many ringers who "suffer" frequently repeated captures in baited potter traps. Birds find the reward of a mealworm adequate compensation (or they have very short memories) and it takes a lot of data to get meaningful statistics that can be acted upon within a timeframe in which the management actions are still relevant.

However for the people (like Sue) who are anti-ringing, I suspect that this isn't about facts and figures, its about personal values. If the tables were turned and someone presented me with believable data in support of hunting foxes with dogs, there is no amount of evidence that could convince me to drop my opposition.