Is ringing ethical? (1 Viewer)

I have just returned from Norfolk, where I observed some birds being ringed at Holme bird observatory. I have to say that I did not find this a pleasant experience, and struggled to justify to myself why these birds should be put through such a traumatic, stressful and uncomfortable (possibly at times painful?) ordeal simply in order to further our scientific knowledge of them. Clearly I understand the need to have SOME knowledge of birds and their behaviour if we are trying to protect them/conserve their habitats, though I would question the need for routine ringing simply in order to satisfy our scientific curiosity where there is no direct conservation need. It is also of course not a strightforward matter to justify the ill-treatment of individual animals in the interests of conservation anyway, as this is one of the arguments used to justify the incerceration of animals in zoos, which can clearly lead to animals experiencing much stress and trauma (though I acknowledge that there are undoubtedly also many 'happy' animals in zoos).

Ocelot

I don't think it's really that painful for the critters, and a little stress should'nt do them any harm, really. Besides, what's the alternative? I think that birds are much stronger than we give them credit for.
Having said that, it should only be done by people who know what they are doing and who know how to handle birds "correctly" (if there is such a thing).

The vast majority of what we know about birds comes from ringing (banding) studies and our knowledge of the conservation problems faced by birds would very limited without them. It takes many years to train to become a ringer and most of that training is about the ways to handle a bird without causing it harm. The single thing that was most emphasised to me when I was training was that the bird's welfare comes first. In any case, the data would be of no value if it had a harmful affect on the bird.
Of course there are always situations where a bird can be harmed, but it is rare and I feel that the huge benefits that we gain from the knowledge far outweigh the very minor risk of harm to the birds. Though I guess that some would fairly say that the ends do not always justify the means.

Tom

This topic was already extensively discussed about a year or two ago. And among ringers about two decades ago. Ocelot, you could do well to familiarise yourself with that debate first.

Having said that, Jurek, I think this debate should be reviewed and revisited periodically. My opinion has changed a little over time. Ringing itself, and perhaps ringers, does seem to have changed a little. Or perhaps ringing and ringers haven't kept pace with the changes in knowledge and what we need ringing for. I'm quite uncomfortable with the ringing of rarities, for instance, and there is a definite 'twitching' element that is creeping into ringing - those tallying extraction ticks and ringing ticks, even handling ticks, for instance. It's totally unnecesaary and not what the UK ringing scheme was set up for. I've seen a ringer chasing a knackered rarity with a hand-held net. To me, that's unethical - ringing the thing would tell you nothing useful about such a vagrant, it will only serve to distress it for no purpose than it's rarity value and place on some anorak's list. And this was at an observatory, where it was seen as nothing unusual. Just look at the 'trophy photos' you get on many ringing websites too. It reminds me of the sort of thing you see in angling or shooting magazines, of proud hunters showing off their impressive quarry.

Routine opportunistic ringing of migrants at observatories is also becoming questionable in some instances, in my opinion. It should be more targetted for specific population studies, not just an ad-hoc "let's go to e.g. Holme and stick some nets up and ring whatever falls in", which is what visiting ringers do. It's never standardised. And when this involves exhausted Goldcrests there doesn't seem a lot of point - we know where they go and where they come from and there are clear welfare issues. Ringing does carry a mortality rate. Yes, many eg goldcrests can be chucked, and nets closed if they're very light or the weather bad, but such ad-hoc and opportunistic ringing of migrants needs greater control and targetting for a clear purpose, I think. CES and RAS ringing is different, and far more defensible. Indeed, it's vital if we're to understand bird populations. But the BTO needs to get a firm grip of the ringing scheme and redefine its purpose and aims more clearly as, in my opinion, ringing is becoming more passtime and less science.

Good question, but the question is incomplete! Also we should ask do you own any bird book ? If someone's only answer is that ringing is unethical, then you should not own any bird book in your own library !

jurek said:

This topic was already extensively discussed about a year or two ago. And among ringers about two decades ago. Ocelot, you could do well to familiarise yourself with that debate first.

Click to expand...

Please forgive me for not being an expert on all issues to do with ringing. Next time I go to make a point on something I'll make sure I've done a PhD on it first.

tomjenner said:

The vast majority of what we know about birds comes from ringing (banding) studies and our knowledge of the conservation problems faced by birds would very limited without them

Click to expand...

Perhaps a little far-fetched to suggest that the "vast-majority" of what we know about birds comes from ringing studies and that our knowledge of the conservation problems faced by birds would be very limited without them. A great deal of what we know stems from observations, monitoring, detailed habitat association studies, behavioural studies etc.

However, ringing studies do have their merits. A usefull overview can be found on the BTO website:

http://www.bto.org/ringing/ringinfo/index.htm

The site claims that ringing does not affect birds. Even though I work for the BTO (albeit not in the ringing unit), I would be a little bit more apprehensive than that. Maybe usually it doesn't is a better answer. Occasionally birds do become so entangled that the odd injury is incurred. Nothing like the damage done by moving vehicles, house windows, power lines etc.

hannu said:

Good question, but the question is incomplete! Also we should ask do you own any bird book ? If someone's only answer is that ringing is unethical, then you should not own any bird book in your own library !

Click to expand...

Could you expand on that point a little Hannu? I find little relevance between owning a book and the possibilities of any harm done to birds by ringing.

iainvaughan said:

Could you expand on that point a little Hannu? I find little relevance between owning a book and the possibilities of any harm done to birds by ringing.

Click to expand...

Main part of our bird knowledge has got with the help of ringing or on that being connected study (measurements, id points, breeding behaviour, migration, etc). I think that in this fact we can agree ? So if someone claim that the ringing is totally unethical (I have heard such claims sometimes), then the fellow, which say so, using this unethical data by owning these books and thus supporting this unethical work. Of course, ringers try to minimize harm and that's why we have very specific and detailed guide books to do so. I suppose that people who wants to enjoy nature and which walking in the nature in bird's breeding time, can cause even more harms to the birds even they don't know to do so.

I think that ringing, although it causes some problems and sometimes few birds can died in the net (notice, that ringers ring tens of thousands birds and only few died because of bad luck), it gives us so much data which help us to protect birds and their enviroments.

We can ask also, how much birding with car causes harm to birds. It's known that moving by car can kill birds a lot. Or how much our western live style kill birds ? (power lines, pollution etc)
I don't ask these with irony, but of course we should think the consequences of our actions.

Ilya Maclean said:

Perhaps a little far-fetched to suggest that the "vast-majority" of what we know about birds comes from ringing studies and that our knowledge of the conservation problems faced by birds would be very limited without them. A great deal of what we know stems from observations, monitoring, detailed habitat association studies, behavioural studies etc.

However, ringing studies do have their merits. A usefull overview can be found on the BTO website:

Click to expand...

How can you do a scientific study of bird behaviour without marking the birds individually? What would you use as your sample size in any statistical analysis if you don't know the number of individuals involved? There is very little value to any behavioural study on unmarked birds. The same apllies to monitoring. How can you monitor something when you have no data on the individuals involved. Counts of birds can be made, but these are of limited value until banding studies give information about turnover rates etc, to know if the group is constant or changing.
Conservation of birds requires an understanding of ecology, species survival, movements etc and I cannot imagine that there are more than a fraction of the relevant published papers in the literature that do not involve data from ringing somewhere in them.

Tom

hannu said:

Main part of our bird knowledge has got with the help of ringing or on that being connected study (measurements, id points, breeding behaviour, migration, etc). I think that in this fact we can agree ? So if someone claim that the ringing is totally unethical (I have heard such claims sometimes), then the fellow, which say so, using this unethical data by owning these books and thus supporting this unethical work. Of course, ringers try to minimize harm and that's why we have very specific and detailed guide books to do so. I suppose that people who wants to enjoy nature and which walking in the nature in bird's breeding time, can cause even more harms to the birds even they don't know to do so.

I think that ringing, although it causes some problems and sometimes few birds can died in the net (notice, that ringers ring tens of thousands birds and only few died because of bad luck), it gives us so much data which help us to protect birds and their enviroments.

We can ask also, how much birding with car causes harm to birds. It's known that moving by car can kill birds a lot. Or how much our western live style kill birds ? (power lines, pollution etc)
I don't ask these with irony, but of course we should think the consequences of our actions.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that point. I now see where you are coming from and I find myself having to agree with you. I can also see Peociles' point of view, I was at Portland on the 14th of October and a Little Bunting was trapped and within minutes it appeared on the RBA Alert.

tomjenner said:

How can you do a scientific study of bird behaviour without marking the birds individually? What would you use as your sample size in any statistical analysis if you don't know the number of individuals involved? There is very little value to any behavioural study on unmarked birds. The same apllies to monitoring. How can you monitor something when you have no data on the individuals involved. Counts of birds can be made, but these are of limited value until banding studies give information about turnover rates etc, to know if the group is constant or changing.
Conservation of birds requires an understanding of ecology, species survival, movements etc and I cannot imagine that there are more than a fraction of the relevant published papers in the literature that do not involve data from ringing somewhere in them.

Tom

Click to expand...

I take your point about the behavioural studies, although I'm aware of many that don't involve ringing / banding, but involve radio-tracking or electronic tagging for example.

With regards to monitoring, a great deal can be achieved without ringing. In fact many of the broad scale monitoring programmes in the UK currently do not entail ringing birds (BBS, WeBS etc. for more info see: http://www.bto.org/survey/index.htm). I agree a great deal more can be achieved if the birds are ringed, hence the recent developments with regards to integrated monitoring. There is a trade-off involved however. Ringing birds and re-sighting them involves a lot more effort than simply counting them.

A quick check of the last 20 papers published with "avian conservation" in their titles, key words, or abstracts using ISI WeB of Knowledge reveals the following: number definitely not involving ringing: 15; number definitely involving ringing: 2; number that may have involved ringing: 3 (I only checked the abstracts and it wasn’t clear).

I don’t devalue the immense amount of effort that a large number of volunteer and professional ringers / banders go to, to obtain valuable scientific information. All I’m saying is that a lot of avian conservation, particularly in developing countries (where most species occur) does not involve ringing.

I have to agree with Ocelot and Poecile and have recently given my thoughts about it all on the ex beebers forum.

I can't see the necessity in going on and on ringing Birds that get stressed enough as it is in their everyday lives. They come to our shores exhausted and are immediately put under great stress straight away....is that honestly the right thing to do....I'm afraid I really don't think so. One Melodious Warbler was recently caught no less than 3 times at Portland, why? They then wondered why it was staying around the quarry there....too stressed to begin it's flight onward no doubt.

All migrating Birds have enough to do in facing the arduous distances involved as it is, but to be stressed out and possibly injured before they even begin their epic journies is surely often so unnecessary, especially when it's so repetitive. I also agree that a lot of it is for the sheer pleasure of ticking, especially the more rarer species. I know it's said that it's all in the name of conservation, but is it really the case that, after all the information is discovered something can definately be done to help the Birds no matter which countries they go to?

What about the weight of the rings they have to wear, like it or not, do they really not hinder their flight....or their chances of fleeing from danger, especially if they get mud, vegetation etc dried onto the rings as well as their legs? What of the risk of Birds rings getting caught up in scrubland...all things to be seriously considered more surely - and who can tell us just how many are never seen again as a result of the rings which are said to help in their conservation?!

Sue

Sue Wright said:

I have to agree with Ocelot and Poecile and have recently given my thoughts about it all on the ex beebers forum.

I can't see the necessity in going on and on ringing Birds that get stressed enough as it is in their everyday lives. They come to our shores exhausted and are immediately put under great stress straight away....is that honestly the right thing to do....I'm afraid I really don't think so. One Melodious Warbler was recently caught no less than 3 times at Portland, why? They then wondered why it was staying around the quarry there....too stressed to begin it's flight onward no doubt.

All migrating Birds have enough to do in facing the arduous distances involved as it is, but to be stressed out and possibly injured before they even begin their epic journies is surely often so unnecessary, especially when it's so repetitive. I also agree that a lot of it is for the sheer pleasure of ticking, especially the more rarer species. I know it's said that it's all in the name of conservation, but is it really the case that, after all the information is discovered something can definately be done to help the Birds no matter which countries they go to?

What about the weight of the rings they have to wear, like it or not, do they really not hinder their flight....or their chances of fleeing from danger, especially if they get mud, vegetation etc dried onto the rings as well as their legs? What of the risk of Birds rings getting caught up in scrubland...all things to be seriously considered more surely - and who can tell us just how many are never seen again as a result of the rings which are said to help in their conservation?!

Sue

Click to expand...

With all respect, If you don't see neccessity of ringing, you should sell your bird book away, because your action to use bird book is in conflict in your sayings.

Of course we can do conservation without ringing, but it does not mean that you will know all about the birds without ringing which will help to protect bird species. Knowledge, which can only ringing give, is also very important role when we protect birds.
There is still a lot of things, which we don't know enough.
E.g. we know that Common Swift can live 21 years old because of ringing (you don't know e.g. this fact without ringing!) and it will give us explanation of it's breeding strategy, why it get only 1-2 chicks. But we don't know yet these things in all birds. We can clear up these mysterious things in long term study with the help of ringing. Of course we can ask himself do we need all that data which the study or ringing will give ?

Also we can use these tacking or tracking eguipments only in bigger species. I think that the concervation of nature in developing countries based indirectly and partly also to the ringing based studies.

I agree that it's not neccessary to catch bird in 3 times one after another (because of twitching?). That kind of actions are forbidden at least here in Finland.

Also it's know that the rings does not causes any remarkable harm to the birds. In addition to Ringing Centre has forbidden ringers to ring certain bird species because of risk to abandon it's nest. To your last question, e.g. the concervation of Spoon-billed sandpiper or Lesser White-fronted Goose. With the help of ringing you have possibility to know in which population different individuals belongs and where they wintering and what are routes of migration in certain population (feeding places), etc....

I can stop ringing immediately, whenever Ringing Centre ask me to stop ringing as in useless work. This all is only voluntary work to me without any expence compensation.

E.g. barn swallows : we know that our Finnish breeding population fly to wintering via Israel to South Africa. If I remember right, British swallows wintering mainly in Western part of Central Africa (Nigeria) and we know that survival rate is 30-50% in first year birds (> compare to their breeding strategy, usually 2 broods, 4-5 chicks in one brood) Also we know that 95% of females come back to breeding 18 km circle area around in birth place and male birds 9 km circle area around in birth place. All these things are important to know if we have to protect these birds and all these things we know with the help of ringing.

Also these identification details in many species based many times in ringers work, e.g. we know today that Sykes's and Booted Warbler are different species. So because we know that they are different species, we can estimate better the size of population etc. Unfortunately my mother language is not english, so I can not explain all my aspects to the original question.

Ringing picks up changes in population a great deal quicker and way more accurately ly than any other method. eg. by comparison of the catches of 1st year to adult birds, or the results from contant effort sites. Indeed one of the reasons that the decline in the House Sparrow took so long to detect is because the species was species was not ringed in the UK since it was believed that there was no value in ringing them..

Poecile said:

To me, that's unethical - ringing the thing would tell you nothing useful about such a vagrant.

Click to expand...

I know there was at least one eastern vagrant - I think it was a Rustic Bunting, that was recovered on a subsequent migration "back on track".

That would of course have been hard to determine if it wasn't ringed. The main argument against ringing vagrants is the very very very low numbers involved and hence the low liklihood of getting either recoveries or meaniningful statistics.

Also when new methods come to use, the benefits of ringing will probably decrease, but this method has used about 100 years, so it has been base of our bird knowledge up to today. Of course it will come period, when we don't need anymore to ring any birds. And also we have to think which birds we should research more. The coordination of international ringing work should be more effective. It's known that when ringers ring certain species, we can get more results in short time e.g. like it happens in study of Barn Swallow.