deborah4
Well-known member
Since I've had a PM accusing me of 'damning' all ringers, and 'casting dispersions', I'll make my own position clear (since some people have had difficulty understanding my posts).
1. I am not against ringing on conservation grounds per se: I recognise, as do many others who have tried to express concerns on this thread, the value of ringing where it leads directly to conservation efforts and further publication of knowledge that pertains to the status of wildbirds and does not in any way impinge on their individual safety or welfare, nor is excessive to need.
2. I am not against ringing per se: where BTO guidelines/objectives and techniques are actually carried out by all ringers who have been granted a licence to handle and ring wild birds. However, I would like to see further debate on the ethics of ringing vagrants and common 'garden' birds - in particular whether this practice can be always be regarded as having conservation objectives.
3. I am not against ringing per se: where special (eg CES) but frequent ringing is carried out to target a particular species if it is justified on conservation grounds. eg. where other forms of monitoring have raised particular concerns relating to population counts, feeding habits, habitat destruction etc and only CE will provide the information required to address those concerns.
Personally, it's not enough for me to repeatedly hear the 'Good Guide to Ringing' if it is also obvious from individual cases that this is not always followed by some ringers in the profession. Again, not questioning the Best Practice of ringing as outlined in Guidelines, or expressed by ringers on this thread, training scheme manuals etc but rather the apparent situation of a ringing profession that includes ringers who are apparently NOT following good practice. What I find disturbing is how little of this seems to be willingly taken on board and discussed by those apparently responsible for public PR - Certain people who have tried to illustrate their concerns with individual examples have been more or less told that they should discuss this in private rather than on a public forum, have had their concerns invalidated by various methods of debate, that their examples are extreme and rare cases, or been met with rote posts of what the situation should be if guidelines/ethos etc is followed on the ground. The fact is, that is not always the situation is it? The common response on this thread when bad examples have been illustrated, is to negate or justify them on the grounds other sections of the birding community behave just as badly or even worse, that people are targetting ringers and tarring them all with the same brush, or no discussion at all about the examples of bad practice given, but deliberate sign-posting to private individuals away from the Forum. This seems to be an evasion or invalidation of the concerns raised.
Trying to support a debate for these concerns, shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of BTO ringing schemes or otherwise but a condemnation of those who don't apparently follow guidelines or use their ringing skills for purposes other than conservation.
Best Practice, imv, deals with bad practice. {The examples show that bad practice does indeed exist}. This, IMV starts with public acknowledgement that things are not as they should be and there is room for improvement. This is GOOD PR!!! Not BAD PR!!! Bad PR is apparently being unwilling to publicly engage with these issues/concerns relating to bad practice, when they are raised by certain birders on a Public Forum, who's only agenda is the welfare and safety of wild birds. The common 'enemy' is those that apparently jeopardise that agenda, not those who feel it is being undermined by certain practices carried out in the field and want to raise it in public debate. ie. It's certain ringers that give the profession a 'bad name' not those of us who care enough to question frequency and motives!
So 2 questions for Mark et al:
1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?
2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the monitoring/control of ringing in this Country to ensure 'bad practice' in the ringing profession is further minimised and the welfare and safety of wild birds is not just always foremost in Guidelines, but those guidelines are properly followed on the ground by all those who have been granted ringing licences? (Good PR which which at least would be a start in putting some people's mind at rest!)
1. I am not against ringing on conservation grounds per se: I recognise, as do many others who have tried to express concerns on this thread, the value of ringing where it leads directly to conservation efforts and further publication of knowledge that pertains to the status of wildbirds and does not in any way impinge on their individual safety or welfare, nor is excessive to need.
2. I am not against ringing per se: where BTO guidelines/objectives and techniques are actually carried out by all ringers who have been granted a licence to handle and ring wild birds. However, I would like to see further debate on the ethics of ringing vagrants and common 'garden' birds - in particular whether this practice can be always be regarded as having conservation objectives.
3. I am not against ringing per se: where special (eg CES) but frequent ringing is carried out to target a particular species if it is justified on conservation grounds. eg. where other forms of monitoring have raised particular concerns relating to population counts, feeding habits, habitat destruction etc and only CE will provide the information required to address those concerns.
Personally, it's not enough for me to repeatedly hear the 'Good Guide to Ringing' if it is also obvious from individual cases that this is not always followed by some ringers in the profession. Again, not questioning the Best Practice of ringing as outlined in Guidelines, or expressed by ringers on this thread, training scheme manuals etc but rather the apparent situation of a ringing profession that includes ringers who are apparently NOT following good practice. What I find disturbing is how little of this seems to be willingly taken on board and discussed by those apparently responsible for public PR - Certain people who have tried to illustrate their concerns with individual examples have been more or less told that they should discuss this in private rather than on a public forum, have had their concerns invalidated by various methods of debate, that their examples are extreme and rare cases, or been met with rote posts of what the situation should be if guidelines/ethos etc is followed on the ground. The fact is, that is not always the situation is it? The common response on this thread when bad examples have been illustrated, is to negate or justify them on the grounds other sections of the birding community behave just as badly or even worse, that people are targetting ringers and tarring them all with the same brush, or no discussion at all about the examples of bad practice given, but deliberate sign-posting to private individuals away from the Forum. This seems to be an evasion or invalidation of the concerns raised.
Trying to support a debate for these concerns, shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of BTO ringing schemes or otherwise but a condemnation of those who don't apparently follow guidelines or use their ringing skills for purposes other than conservation.
Best Practice, imv, deals with bad practice. {The examples show that bad practice does indeed exist}. This, IMV starts with public acknowledgement that things are not as they should be and there is room for improvement. This is GOOD PR!!! Not BAD PR!!! Bad PR is apparently being unwilling to publicly engage with these issues/concerns relating to bad practice, when they are raised by certain birders on a Public Forum, who's only agenda is the welfare and safety of wild birds. The common 'enemy' is those that apparently jeopardise that agenda, not those who feel it is being undermined by certain practices carried out in the field and want to raise it in public debate. ie. It's certain ringers that give the profession a 'bad name' not those of us who care enough to question frequency and motives!
So 2 questions for Mark et al:
1. Do you acknowledge bad practices exist and the welfare and safety of individual birds has been compromised by such practice (as outlined in some of the examples given in this thread)?
2. If so, what can you (others?) do to improve the monitoring/control of ringing in this Country to ensure 'bad practice' in the ringing profession is further minimised and the welfare and safety of wild birds is not just always foremost in Guidelines, but those guidelines are properly followed on the ground by all those who have been granted ringing licences? (Good PR which which at least would be a start in putting some people's mind at rest!)