-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
What's with this ringing of the neck? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chato
- Start date
Mícheál
Well-known member
Hi Dave,
Neck bands are used fairly commonly in Europe in geese and swans. I do not know why you assume it should be uncomfortable - these are far less restricting than a domestic dog's collar, and nobody is going to attach a lead to it! Remember that our perception is just that - assessment of the impact of marking procedures on wildlife needs to be evidence-based, otherwise we can just endlessly swap perceptions.
Having said that, i do not have specific evidence - so here are my perceptions:
These are very lightweight plastic collars, they are outside the dense feathering that is characteristic of these species, and I have never seen them cause a problem.
If they changed a bird's behaviour or well-being, they would be totally self-defeating as their purpose is to monitor, among other parameters, normal movement, behaviour, reproductive success and longevity.
They are also much more readable than leg bands in the field, for species like the Mute Swan pictured that spend much of their lives in water (or in vegetation) that would preclude ring-reading - thus they should generate far more data than leg rings.
The use of neck-bands, like all ringing procedures is well regulated and performed by people who have specific training.
Hope this helps.
Mícheál
Chato
Well-known member
It's true that this is my perception, but Swans have odd necks. I've observed that from time to time these neck rings interfere with the ability of the Swan to bend its neck. That thing rides up and down the neck.
While this might be my perception, I would imagine that wearing a beer can, can be more than annoying.
True, easier for us to read. The image makes that quite clear...
Dave
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
One also has to weigh up the annoying of a swan with the data required to conserve their species. It may indeed be a slight annoyance, but they are made to be as safe and humane as possible (like dog collars). The alternative to not using them is to not get the data needed. And without data, there is little support for conservation initiatives. How can you show that a site is an important stop-over/breeding area for a population if you cannot show this with population data? Tagging of some sort is essential to this. So, of course, both the swan and the researchers would rather it wasn't necessary, but in the absence of other affordable and practical tecnology, we have to go with the best methods available that are also the most humane.
Incidently, any method that is shown to have too much of a detrimental effect (more than a minute mortality rate or history of injuries) is not licenced for use.
Incidently, any method that is shown to have too much of a detrimental effect (more than a minute mortality rate or history of injuries) is not licenced for use.
Chato
Well-known member
What's wrong with banding the ankle as we do with other birds? True, we have to wait until the bird is dead before we can phone in the data...
I've called in data from such birds that I've found.
look at the size of that thing...
It's a lifetime sentence without a qualitative change in the amount of data recieved. I'm pretty sure that a bird, after a month or two, forgets that their even wearing an ankle band, while this guy is reminded of it every time it slides up and down.
I have to search for it, but I have a picture of a Swan who temporarily couldn't even bend his neck, until the beer can moved.
Dave
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
It's so that it can be read at distance when the bird is either on water or in grass. You can't see a leg ring if it's on the underside of a swan sat on a lake, or sat on a nest, or grazing in a field of sprouting wheat. It's that big so it can be seen.
Birds are marked in different ways for different reasons. Birds with wing tags or colour rings or neck bands are actively being searched for as part of a specific project. General numbered bands on the leg are more passive in that high numbers are ringed for lower passive returns. With colour marks like this, you get high returns from a low number of marks. But you need to tailor it to the species. It's no good paying people to go looking for marked swans if they've got colour-rings that will not be seen 90% of the time due to the species' behaviour. By the same token, you need wing tags on raptors (as they're most often seen in flight), and there's no point in using neck collars on waders as it's easy to see the legs most of the time.
It's all for a reason, and is regulated by law.
Can you support your theory that there is no more qualitative change in data quality (which is nonesense, it's diretcly related to that), or that it's less humane than a leg ring? If not, you're just supposing that you know the mind of a bird.
Birds are marked in different ways for different reasons. Birds with wing tags or colour rings or neck bands are actively being searched for as part of a specific project. General numbered bands on the leg are more passive in that high numbers are ringed for lower passive returns. With colour marks like this, you get high returns from a low number of marks. But you need to tailor it to the species. It's no good paying people to go looking for marked swans if they've got colour-rings that will not be seen 90% of the time due to the species' behaviour. By the same token, you need wing tags on raptors (as they're most often seen in flight), and there's no point in using neck collars on waders as it's easy to see the legs most of the time.
It's all for a reason, and is regulated by law.
Can you support your theory that there is no more qualitative change in data quality (which is nonesense, it's diretcly related to that), or that it's less humane than a leg ring? If not, you're just supposing that you know the mind of a bird.
Last edited:
Chato
Well-known member
Obviously. The photo makes that perfectly clear.
(snip)
I don't need to know the mind of a bird. Creatures great and small, which share awarness of self, will be happy to refute your statement that they don't mind this more than a leg ring.
Or are you saying that birds are not aware of their own existance? If such is the case, who cares?
But they are aware of themselves, and to call this humane is a contradiction in terms. Whatever the increase of data, I don't think is should be acquired at that cost. Since I've seen these birds in distress (no, their not dying) then I already know that they, in whatever manner they think, find this distressing. Yet I've never seen a bird with a leg tag show distress.
Dave
JedHarrison
Member
have a read of these webpages,
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/msncsurvey.html
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/html/journal092706.htm
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/research/tundraswan/tswan.html
if you look at the last one, the maps of the migration and movemnet of these birds, this would be impossible without such banding effort.
The arguement about the bird forgetting about a leg ring and not forgatting about a neck ring is not very strong- why would there be a difference. The difference comes from a human-centric view of the neck being more sensitive than the legs, which we do not know for sure in swans. When swans fight they grab eat other by whatever they get hold of but often the neck and beat their wings until one breaks free. they use their necks as a weapon and a grappling device, this would suggest that their necks have evolved to sustain this use and are unlikely to be anywhere near as sensitive as human necks- which are not used for any such purpose.
there are hundreds of birds out there with neck rings, the data that they give to science and wildlife management is so valuable it justifies the use of bands. There is some evidence of the rings causing problems, there is some evidence of the rings influencing mating behaviour and feeding rates. There is also a great deal of evidence of the birds not being affected by the neck rings (although it is far easier to prove the former than the latter), behaving and mating normally.
I would suggest that using the data to create a safe wintering/summering/stop-over site for migrants is very important, there are a lot of dangers out there for swans (fishing gear, nets, pollution, collision) and this practice is a very, very small risk compared to these that kill swans on a daily basis.
having said that one day we will have tiny satellite tags that dont need this kind of thing- but we just cannot wait for that day- some important species may be lost before we can gather data in the perfect manner.
With all ringing there is an arguement for and against. The evidence is not strong against and difficult to gather the other way, however i would avoid using your own view of having a ring attached to your own body to draw arguements against ringing.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/msncsurvey.html
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/html/journal092706.htm
http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/research/tundraswan/tswan.html
if you look at the last one, the maps of the migration and movemnet of these birds, this would be impossible without such banding effort.
The arguement about the bird forgetting about a leg ring and not forgatting about a neck ring is not very strong- why would there be a difference. The difference comes from a human-centric view of the neck being more sensitive than the legs, which we do not know for sure in swans. When swans fight they grab eat other by whatever they get hold of but often the neck and beat their wings until one breaks free. they use their necks as a weapon and a grappling device, this would suggest that their necks have evolved to sustain this use and are unlikely to be anywhere near as sensitive as human necks- which are not used for any such purpose.
there are hundreds of birds out there with neck rings, the data that they give to science and wildlife management is so valuable it justifies the use of bands. There is some evidence of the rings causing problems, there is some evidence of the rings influencing mating behaviour and feeding rates. There is also a great deal of evidence of the birds not being affected by the neck rings (although it is far easier to prove the former than the latter), behaving and mating normally.
I would suggest that using the data to create a safe wintering/summering/stop-over site for migrants is very important, there are a lot of dangers out there for swans (fishing gear, nets, pollution, collision) and this practice is a very, very small risk compared to these that kill swans on a daily basis.
having said that one day we will have tiny satellite tags that dont need this kind of thing- but we just cannot wait for that day- some important species may be lost before we can gather data in the perfect manner.
With all ringing there is an arguement for and against. The evidence is not strong against and difficult to gather the other way, however i would avoid using your own view of having a ring attached to your own body to draw arguements against ringing.
Chato
Well-known member
Since my comparison with humans had nothing to do with my particular neck, you misunderstood me. My point was that I've seen distressed Swans wearing these neck collars, and since birds are aware of themselves, just as you and I, being in a state of distress is not a routine that I try to engage in.
The links you posted are interesting. But I don't have a problem with leg banding, and if there is "less" data is not to say that there is no data. Once again you are "running" with my statements.
These birds are not endangered. We are not engaged in a life and death struggle to preserve their existence. If you can demonstrate this necessity of keeping the species going, I might agree with you. Are these Condors, where we humans if we wish to preserve them, are forced to extreme and controversial methods?
Indeed, you admit that there is evidence that these cans do from time to time actually result in serious harm. It seems a bit arrogant on the part of those running these programs, to endanger any individuals life for their convenience in collecting data. Data which would be collected anyway, albeit slower.
I am not a person given to anthropomorphizing. It took me many years of obervation before I realised that these creatures were not simply "a machine whose purpose is to make another machine."
I may be slow, but I'm not stupid. You tell me that they use their necks in many different ways; may I point out that these ways include "bending." And if the bird cannot bend, what will that result in?
If waiting for this bird to die, to collect information on Pergrines is good enough, then it should be good enough for Swans.
Dave
Attachments
I've seen numbered neck rings on the local Canada Geese (Reno, Nevada) off and on for over 20 years now. I've never seen any evidence that they cause the birds any distress and I know of a number of cases where neck-ringed geese have successfully bred. Like urban geese everywhere, the local birds often get very tame, making the neck-rings easily readable without binoculars and the birds therefore very easy to keep track of. Moreover, the rings inspire curiosity among members of the public and are often reported to the local birding ListServ (and doubtless also to the various park and wildlife agencies) and I'm sure that data on goose movements (or whatever's being studied) harvested from this source are exponentially greater than they would be from leg rings or other forms of marking.
Do the geese "mind" the rings? Who can tell what a goose apparently behaving normally and not obviously uncomfortable "minds"?
Do the geese "mind" the rings? Who can tell what a goose apparently behaving normally and not obviously uncomfortable "minds"?
Last edited:
Chato
Well-known member
I've always appreciated the above logic. If an alien from space observed a parapalegic, would they then conclude that humans don't mind being deprived of being able to walk?
In the image with this post, can you tell me if this bird is "distressed?"
Can you tell me if a parapalegic human is "distressed?" And you're not even from Mars.
We all have a will to survive, certainly those who choose to survive do. After all, we don't see those who give it up.
What then does this have to do with the question?
If you or others believe that these birds are not self aware, then you have a case. If however, you agree with me (and most ornithologists) that they Are self aware, then you do not. I've rescued a number of birds, and only when I was handling them, did they "talk" to me.
Perhaps I'm doing what I always warn others not to do; anthropomorphizing. On the other hand, I've never seen distress from a leg band, but I have seen distress from these neck bands.
Dave
Attachments
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
Well Dave, I would suggest that you construct an objective experiment on stress and neck collars and publish the results. Because anyone can take selective evidence out of context and make it look/sound like whatever they like. That is why the decisions on these things are made by people with expertise in the area and using objective data using trials. Not their personal impressions. And those people have decided that the data is worth the 'cost' and that the birds are not adversely affected enough to either bias the data or be inhumane.
The bottom line is that waiting for a bird to die to get data is not good enough for targetted studies using limited resources, and where current welfare requirements are met.
But then I get the feeling that no explanation will be good enough for you, but then you're entitled to your opinion.
The bottom line is that waiting for a bird to die to get data is not good enough for targetted studies using limited resources, and where current welfare requirements are met.
But then I get the feeling that no explanation will be good enough for you, but then you're entitled to your opinion.
Chato
Well-known member
You're probably right in this last comment. I tossed all my scholarly books on behavior in the garbage when I couldn't explain the behavior of birds (or other creatures for that matter) as the acts of automatons - Which is what they all told me I was witnessing.
You realise that it was only in 2004 that an ornotholigists convention acknowledged that birds were not completely hard wired? How long have we been collaring birds?
Sure, we can agree to disagree.
Dave
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
Oh good grief. I don't know what kind of books you're reading, or conferences you're talking about, but you are revealing quite some naivety of the field here. Research on bird personality and learned behaviours has been going on for decades. Hardly 'automatons' or 'hard-wired', if scientists are studying personality and the plasticity of behaviour. Anyone who studies birds closely knows that some individuals behave differently to others.
It's quite popular for people to slate scientists these days, for being narrow-minded, blinkered, dead-eyed slaves to the wrong path, unable to see the anthropomorphic attributes that such people attach to other species from their armchairs. Such people tend to value subjective experience over 'scholarly' objective methods of analysis. They usually reveal themselves as being poorly-read, who have little first-hand experience of what they're talking about, looking to stir pointless and baseless controversy. I'd advise them to read more ISI journals, ask more questions from those engaged in the fields they're considering, and perhaps not approach a subject (or forum) with their mind already made up about the answer to the question they're asking.
Last edited:
Chato
Well-known member
We are all entitled to our opinions, which is what we Were discussing. But we are not entitled to our facts - And in this case you are just making stuff up.
The consensus of science was, that since birds have no cortex, that they also have no "intelligence." It was only at the convention that I referred to, that this consensus was reversed and it was finally recognised that "birds have an equivalent to the cerebral cortex."
That some people believed this before, is not the question. "Science" did not. Nor did the majority of those scientific publications, which I naively took on faith.
Dave
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
So you're claiming that, before 2004, 'Science' did not believe that birds had 'intelligence'?
What's this then?
Intelligence and Imitation in Birds; A Criterion of Imitation
James P. Porter
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan., 1910), pp. 1-71
Work had been going on for years prior to 2004 on high intelligence in New Caledonian Crows. Not to mention Pepperberg and her parrots.
I fear you're paraphrasing 'Science' for your own prejudices here.
Oh, here's some of my made-up papers on bird personality research, all predating 2004:
Carere C (2003). Personalities as an Epigenetic Suite of Traits. A Study on a Passerine Bird. PhD Thesis. University of Groningen, Groningen.
Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Van Noordwijk AJ, Rutten AL, Drent PJ (2003). Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B 270: 741–747
Verbeek MEM, De Goede P, Drent PJ, Wiepkema PR (1999). Individual behavioural characteristics and dominance in aviary groups of great tits. Behaviour 136: 23–48.
Marchetti C, Drent PJ (2000). Individual differences in the use of social information in foraging by captive Great Tits. Animal Behav 60: 131–140.
Van Oers K, Drent PJ, De Goede P, Van Noordwijk AJ (2003). Realized heritability and repeatability of risk taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities. Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 65–73.
What's this then?
Intelligence and Imitation in Birds; A Criterion of Imitation
James P. Porter
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan., 1910), pp. 1-71
Work had been going on for years prior to 2004 on high intelligence in New Caledonian Crows. Not to mention Pepperberg and her parrots.
I fear you're paraphrasing 'Science' for your own prejudices here.
Oh, here's some of my made-up papers on bird personality research, all predating 2004:
Carere C (2003). Personalities as an Epigenetic Suite of Traits. A Study on a Passerine Bird. PhD Thesis. University of Groningen, Groningen.
Dingemanse NJ, Both C, Van Noordwijk AJ, Rutten AL, Drent PJ (2003). Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B 270: 741–747
Verbeek MEM, De Goede P, Drent PJ, Wiepkema PR (1999). Individual behavioural characteristics and dominance in aviary groups of great tits. Behaviour 136: 23–48.
Marchetti C, Drent PJ (2000). Individual differences in the use of social information in foraging by captive Great Tits. Animal Behav 60: 131–140.
Van Oers K, Drent PJ, De Goede P, Van Noordwijk AJ (2003). Realized heritability and repeatability of risk taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities. Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 65–73.
Chato
Well-known member
Science is not scientists. If you don't know that, you can continue in your arrogant manner...
There have been many individuals in the past who felt that the opinion of Science on bird intelligence was flawed. Thankfully, the Science itself has changed...
But I am a layperson and foolishly believed the opinion of Science and not the individuals who were onto the reality of bird intelligence.
In the meantime, since Science has told you that birds couldn't care less about wearing a beer can around their necks - You faithfully repeat this gibberish to me.
I've posted a number of links below. Thee last paragraph of the last link makes my case.
This is my last reply to your insulting invective. Knock yourself out.
**********************
Birds do many things that appear to be acts of thoughtful intelligence. In most cases, however, their behavior is simply instinctive; no reasoning power directs it. Many examples can be given.
http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-197586/bird
Bird intelligence deals with the definition of intelligence and its measurement as it applies to birds. Traditionally, birds have been considered inferior in intelligence to mammals, and derogatory terms such as bird brains have been used colloquially in some cultures.
"It is everywhere recognized that birds possess highly complex instinctive endowments and that their intelligence is very limited."
—Herrick, 1924[1]
Such perceptions are no longer considered valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence
Published: February 1, 2005
Birdbrain has long been a colloquial term of ridicule. The common notion is that birds' brains are simple, or so scientists thought and taught for many years. But that notion has increasingly been called into question as crows and parrots, among other birds, have shown what appears to be behavior as intelligent as that of chimpanzees...
...Today, in the journal Nature Neuroscience Reviews, an international group of avian experts is issuing what amounts to a manifesto. Nearly everything written in anatomy textbooks about the brains of birds is wrong, they say. The avian brain is as complex, flexible and inventive as any mammalian brain, they argue, and it is time to adopt a more accurate nomenclature that reflects a new understanding of the anatomies of bird and mammal brains.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01bird.html
Last edited:
Mícheál
Well-known member
Poecile,
Commiserations, but you are "wasting your sweetness on the desert air"
"Never argue with an idiot - they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience"
I give up, just searching every day for a beer can with numbers on it to put around my neck, and asking my wife to record my behaviour. Will post the photos here.
Good night
Mícheál
KnockerNorton
Well-known member
I just love it when a "layperson" tries telling a scientist what "Science" is (apparently not the collective work of scientists!). And it makes me mirth myself into soggying my shoes when they post wikipedia and opinion articles by journalists in the NY Times to counter peer-reviewed research papers in ISI journals and PhD theses (no, not from the kind of PhDs awarded over from the internet for a small fee). Which, incidently, do not contradict anything posted. It's like the good old days, before The Enlightenment happened.
Dave, what's your line of business? I probably have no experience in it (being a 'layman' in such a field, I imagine), but I'll gladly tell you how to go about it and how it works, seeing as you were so kind as to tell me all about science and birds and colour-marking. Is it brain surgery? I do hope so...
Dave, what's your line of business? I probably have no experience in it (being a 'layman' in such a field, I imagine), but I'll gladly tell you how to go about it and how it works, seeing as you were so kind as to tell me all about science and birds and colour-marking. Is it brain surgery? I do hope so...
Last edited:
