Impacts of bird ringing (threads merged) (1 Viewer)

Well said Derek!

you have to set the benefits of ringing vs the small amount of stress and mortality suffered by the birds.

Here in Malta, if it wasnt for ringing data, we wouldn't have a chance in hell of trying to make a case against hunting in spring with the EU. As with everything ringing has advantages and disadvantages, but i d rather stress a few robins and blackcaps to protect rarer and declining species from the guns of our 'sportsmen'

Firetail said:

Reading through this thread it is clear that it was started by and continues to be perpetuated by elements interested in indulging themselves in an holier than thou attitude and enjoying baiting ringers. Offered reasoned responses to concerns on the welfare of birds and the need for ringing them, these responses are ignored and the thread goes on in circles in a never ending diatribe of moral point scoring.

Presenting the exceptional as a norm is both misleading and indulgent for those persons intent on nothing more than discrediting the value of ringing and by definition ringers. I am not a ringer, for one thing I haven’t the time, but I count the value of ringing as the principle means by which so much has been learnt about our birds and their habitats. The research is on-going as new threats and constant changes evolve over any given period of time. Expressing an opinion is the right of all on an open forum, but state it as it is ‘an opinion’ not as a presentation of why ringing is something to be frowned upon or even stopped! Except and acknowledge reasoned and supported answers instead of ignoring them to perpetuate your own and often repeated opinions. Agree to disagree and move on.

As for the moral high ground, then this simply does not make any sense whatsoever for those purporting to be ‘more’ concerned and caring for our birds. Each and every one of us is capable of having negative impacts on birds through the actions we take in the course of our daily life. I once opened my back yard gate and flushed a Sparrowhawk from its kill, a male Blackbird, the bird flew straight into my backdoor window and killed itself! I have had the misfortune of killing birds whilst driving, an experience I am sure many others have shared. So is the conclusion of these negative experiences to never open my back yard gate again or to never use my car again? How many people own a cat knowing the negative impact these animals have on wildlife? And so it can go on, each of our actions have a consequence, so whilst ringers will never intend harm for birds, they also will on rare occasions be responsible for an exceptional mortality. The benefits of their work will always far outweigh such exceptional occurrences. I hope commonsense prevails.

Click to expand...

It's my opinion that whoever rings birds is responsible for their wellbeing.
So instead of repeating what has been said a thousand times on this thread already, you could have asked yourself and others here on the forum if this ice-forming nuisance could be prevented in the future, maybe by some research on new materials.

I am willing to accept the great benefits of ringing, as I have stated before.
I know of all the results gained in the past.

Photographic evidence of ice-forming I had not yet witnessed; after all the case of the drowned swan may well be true. It's not OK to just dismiss such cases as collateral damage done in the interest of scientific research; measures should be taken to prevent this from happening in the future.
That's all I'm asking for. That's not unreasonable, now, is it?

Greetings, Ronald

Andy Darrington said:

No fake Ronald, this was taken at my feeding station on the one snowy day a year we get in the UK. How long would the bird have lasted if we had a real cold snap?

Andy

Click to expand...

Thanks, Andy,

I hope I did not give you the impression I was questioning your integrity by using the word "fake". But I wanted your photo to be real so much, I found I had to be a bit impolite to be certain. Hope you can forgive me.
Your photo struck me as the kind of evidence I would have wanted in the case of the drowned swan. It's a relief to have photo's like these, it's better material for a debate than anecdotal and hear-say stuff. Hard evidence is less likely to be dismissed if you want to make a point.

I assume that in prolonged cold weather this bird would not have survived. In a real cold snap, it would depend on it's foraging possibilities I guess. If it can't move much but get access to food it may survive.
But this is all speculation, so I must say I really wouldn't know anything about its survival chances.

Thanks again,

Ronald

KorHaan said:

It's a relief to have photo's like these.

I assume that in prolonged cold weather this bird would not have survived.

If it can't move much but get access to food it may survive.

Click to expand...

Though difficult to gauge from the single photo, it does appear the bird is active and in good health - is the bird's survival really at risk?

I ring almost exclusively in winter, in temperatures that fall to minus 30, and I can honestly say I have never seen an individual adversely affected by ringing to date (if I had, as with most ringers I suspect, I would not continue to ring). That said, ice build up is less likely to be an issue here - whilst rare in any circumstances, it is far more likely to occur in an environment where it is not severely cold, but rather hovering nearer the +/- zero mark. Here it is too cold.

KorHaan said:

It's my opinion that whoever rings birds is responsible for their wellbeing.
So instead of repeating what has been said a thousand times on this thread already, you could have asked yourself and others here on the forum if this ice-forming nuisance could be prevented in the future, maybe by some research on new materials. That's not unreasonable, now, is it?
Greetings, Ronald

Click to expand...

No need to get personal Ronald. But okay then that gives me leave to take a look at you. I understand now. Its okay for you to bang on and on repeating yourself, but not others! Of course its okay for those repeating things if they agree with your hardline anti-ringing attitude. If you take a look at your previous posts here, then all might appear very reasonable, but of course if you take a look at how many of your questions have received good reasoned answers, which you subsequently ignored, then I ask myself why? Not scoring any points on one question, you keep moving on to others, no doubt hoping to lure some unsuspecting victim to say something wrong and hang him/herself.

In your previous posts you say things like and lets have a few quotes:

"Since I feel I'm already playing the role of the devils advocate here"

"But do keep following the posts on this thread, because I think the heat is on soon..."

So confrontation is what you are after? Or lets take a look at some mute points you offer for serious discussion:

"I assume that in prolonged cold weather this bird would not have survived. In a real cold snap, it would depend on it's foraging possibilities I guess. If it can't move much but get access to food it may survive.
But this is all speculation, so I must say I really wouldn't know anything about its survival chances"

"I've heard a story of a ringnecked Bewick's Swan or a Whooper ( sorry for not being specific but it's years ago ) who drowned in severe winter conditions when ice was forming around the ring, and accumulating to the point the bird no longer could hold its head up. I state specifically it's hearsay"

And so Ronald you go on and on, making assumptions, offering points which are hearsay. Of course never failing to jump upon a point that some other may bring up against ringing and forever ignoring any points in favour. All very boring but in the end I suspect your 'own' take on ringing is just that.

Just one point... I know nothing about the Bewick's Swan incident... but Ice is less dense than water.

Ausable Bird Observatory said:

Well said Derek!

Click to expand...

Agree with you Peter. Take a look at the Blue Tit he seems fine and in exceptional condition, so don't get too carried away with human perceptions.

Jane Turner: Just one point... I know nothing about the Bewick's Swan incident... but Ice is less dense than water.

Exactly Jane.

Black Wheatear said:

Agree with you Peter. Take a look at the Blue Tit he seems fine and in exceptional condition, so don't get too carried away with human perceptions.

Click to expand...

The photo also shows a fairly loose aggregate of snow/ice particles and may have weighed very little. A Blue Tit being bothered by it would likely use its formidable beak to tackle the problem.

Jane Turner said:

Just one point... I know nothing about the Bewick's Swan incident... but Ice is less dense than water.

Click to expand...

True, but water doesn't exactly have a tendency to accumulate in large blocks does it? BTW I'm not joining the anti-ringers in this debate; I think they're (almost all) probably well-meaning but unfortunately misguided and ill-informed, and the swan incident is just hearsay.

cheers
martin

martin kitching said:

True, but water doesn't exactly have a tendency to accumulate in large blocks does it? BTW I'm not joining the anti-ringers in this debate; I think they're (almost all) probably well-meaning but unfortunately misguided and ill-informed, and the swan incident is just hearsay.
cheers
martin

Click to expand...

Quite right Martin, however icebergs float don't they? :t:

It’s a shame that arguments on this emotive issue often become entrenched, with both sides being equally guilty of closing themselves off from reasonable argument.

For me, there are a couple of features of the ringing "scene" in Britain that are worthy of acknowledgement:

The first is that the vast majority of ringers, under the guidance of the BTO, go to enormous measures to ensure the safety of their birds, and in most cases the negative effects of ringing are minimal.

The second is that, despite the above statement, there is definitely a pervading feeling that anyone who suggests that ringing could harm birds is a crazy ignorant heretic, who should be silenced as quickly as possible.

The third, and most worrying for me, is that many ringers seem to fall into the trap of believing that they are able to accurately gauge the state of a bird they are handling. I’m sure that experienced ringers can tell when a bird is extremely distressed, but more subtle behavioural effects are unlikely to be obvious to humans. You often hear statements like “it seems to be fine” and “didn’t show any signs of distress” – are we really sure we can read the birds that well? Or could we be misinterpreting their signals, based on our assumption that we aren’t doing any harm?

Personally, I would like to see ringers embracing those who question their methods, and using the criticisms as jumping-off points for studies that look into their effects in greater detail. It is very difficult to determine the true mortality rate from ringing studies, and I would like to see more effort put into producing robust statistical analyses to back up statements like “the mortality rate is very small”. This is especially the case with more intrusive methods like colour-ringing and blood sampling.

Re assessing distress, you need to draw a distinction between distress with consequences (i.e. the bird is likely to be harmed or die) and distress due to being handled that has little/no effect on the birds' chances. The latter is likely to be experienced by ALL birds that are ringed - they're being held by a predator! But does it matter? Well, if the bird does not suffer after beign released then no. That is the basis on which ringing is undertaken - the limited distress to the brid is minimised and considered 'worth it' for the data collected, and the bird come to no ultimate harm.

the first one - distress causing harm - IS addressed by ringers. There is a section on it in the manual, and ringers are trained to spot it. It's pretty easy too - the bird goes lethargic, will close it's eyes, or gape etc. Birds in serious distress are quiet - those that squawk at you (thrushes) are perfectly fine, and showing it.

Ringers cannot embrace all criticisms and nor should they. Do you take tips from someone who has never done your job? many criticisms are rooted either in ignorance or prejudice - it's just a fact. Some people do not like it and never will, due to sentimentality among other things. The BTO bends over backwards to educate and show the value, but plenty of people do not want to hear it, and that's their perogative. A ringer's perogative is to get on with it and ignore them, accepting the endorsement of the Govt and scientific bodies instead. You can only eductae and justify yourself to a certain point, and at the end of the day a ringer does not have to justify themselves to anyone other than the ringing unit and the law. They have a right to get on with it without paying attention to hecklers if they don't want to.

Re assessing mortality rates from ringing, this has been covered. For those undertaking colour-ringing studies, especially of sedentary species, you can know exactly how much mortality you're getting from ringing. If you are colour-ringing many tits, sparrows etc, the birds don't go far and you know if they disappear and will have a good idea if it's due to ringing. Same with blood sampling of these species. I know of a study on a sedentary species using colour-ringing and blood sampling. Out of over 1000 handlings of about 500 birds, two birds came a cropper directly due to ringing, and none through blood sampling. That's a fatality on 0.2% of handlings involving 0.4% of birds. I'd say that was worth it for the huge amount of data collected that went on to feed into that species' conservation.

Quote:-
Re assessing distress, you need to draw a distinction between distress with consequences (i.e. the bird is likely to be harmed or die) and distress due to being handled that has little/no effect on the birds' chances.
It's pretty easy too - the bird goes lethargic, will close it's eyes, or gape etc. Birds in serious distress are quiet - those that squawk at you (thrushes) are perfectly fine, and showing it.

This is the kind of thing I'm referring to. It seems that ringers often see their effects as very cut-and-dry - a bird is assumed to be in good health right up until the point that it has gone lethargic etc..

In fact, there is a big grey area there; the cumulative effects of the experience are likely to be building up during the whole period the bird is captured. Yes, only a tiny proportion are affected so badly that they die within a short time after release. But what about the knock-on effects of the experience on the condition of individuals? Could they have suffered less obvious effects? A loss of body condition? Fright-moult? Confusion, shock? All these could weaken birds, leaving them more open to parasites, or less capable of finding food, or continuing with their migrations etc.. These effects could be much harder to detect, but no less important for the individual and potentially the population.

Regarding what has been done before on assessing mortality rates - yes, it's excellent that studies have been able to assess this, and have produced encouraging results, but that shouldn't be the end of the matter. Rather than assuming results can be extrapolated to other species, it should be common practice to continue analysing data on survival rates, to make sure that other patterns are not being overlooked. As scientists, we are encouraged to continually re-state and re-assess our assumptions, and I would encourage all those involved in ringing to keep doing the same. Are all those birds that "seem fine" really going to be unaffected? Find novel ways of using your data to answer these questions, and we may be able to refine our methods and learn even more about the birds in future.

Well unless you want ringers to use hormome levels to detect stress in the hand, then there's not a lot else you can go on but observed condition of the bird. That's what vets use, and it's pretty much all we've got.

Again, the knock on effects you're proposing: confusion, shock, loss of condition etc. If these effects even exist, then they seem to be negligible to the survival of the bird as far as we can tell. If they even exist then they'd fall into that cateogry of 'acceptable impacts' that are assumed to not last long, if at all. You cannot measure these things without handling the birds, so how can you test for it? You cannot. But if you put it into context, if the survival of birds that ever had a traumatic experience was severely compromised, not many would survive being chased by a sparrowhawk, or battling a headwind over the sahara, or dodging GBB Gulls over the North Sea etc etc etc. There is no obvious evidence of serious effects from ringing to date, so that's all you can go on. The BTO does collate (and request reports) of negative effects, hence certain procedures require additional training or are banned. You have to have a separate Home Office licence and training to take blood, for example. So analysis of effects is common practice. But unless you've got a better idea of how to measure the effects that you mention, without handling birds, then ringers can only go on obvious impacts, which seem to be minimal for >99% of procedures.

I am not for or against ringing but I would like to know why you see some birds with 3 rings on (Tree Sparrows Summer leys Northampton) why would one ring be not enough?
How long has ringing been going on and what will we learn from my ringed Blue tit, I have also noticed some of my Great tits and finches are also getting rung what is there to learn from these? I think a certain amount of ringing now is done as a hobby.

Andy

PS. No offence taken Ronald

You'll find answers to all of your questions by looking back through this thread, or by looking at the BTO website. This might be a good starting point: http://www.bto.org/ringing/ringinfo/objectives.htm

Ringers are usually volunteers so, yes, it is done as a hobby. What's wrong with that? The data they colelct is all sent to be BTO, where it is used for research by them and other academics. They are all paid, by the way. RSPB voluntary wardens, BTCV volunteers, charity shop workers etc are also doing it as a hobby.

Whats the idea of 3 rings?

Andy

'roy said:

Regarding what has been done before on assessing mortality rates - yes, it's excellent that studies have been able to assess this, and have produced encouraging results, but that shouldn't be the end of the matter. Rather than assuming results can be extrapolated to other species, it should be common practice to continue analysing data on survival rates, to make sure that other patterns are not being overlooked. As scientists, we are encouraged to continually re-state and re-assess our assumptions, and I would encourage all those involved in ringing to keep doing the same. Are all those birds that "seem fine" really going to be unaffected? Find novel ways of using your data to answer these questions, and we may be able to refine our methods and learn even more about the birds in future.

Click to expand...

Hi Roy,
I believe you will find the analysis of data, including survival rates, is an on-going process. By continually comparing data you are also using emerging patterns and re-assessing them.

Most involved in either the ringing of birds for data collection or those using ringing in conjunction with other specific study methods are always seeking better methods of working practices. Whatever our field of expertise, we are all still learning.

I am currently working on species specific studies and using ringing as a tool towards better understanding my subjects. Colour ringing is an enormously helpful aid in monitoring individuals by observation and of course provides a perfect way to comment on ringing and its effects upon individual birds. To date I have no evidence or made observations that my subjects have been adversely affected by my catching them, ringing them and handling them (includes full biometric study). It has also been possible to comment on their social biology and for example I have seen no evidence of either a ringed male or female being rejected by an unringed potential suitor. If I had the slightest indication that ringing my subjects altered in anyway their normal life, then my studies would become totally worthless and I would forevermore stop ringing.

I (and I am sure my colleagues) have and will continue always to put the bird's welfare first.

Andy Darrington; said:

Whats the idea of 3 rings?

Andy

Click to expand...

I assume that one was a BTO (uniquely) numbered ring, whilst the other two were coloured plastic, allowing the bird to be recognised in the field (without capturing it).