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

[Cognitive_Ethology]

"Stress is not an emotion, it's a physiological state of being. Like fear, or aggression. They are not emotions either, they're respnses to stimuli. Emotions can be independent of stimuli ("I'm feeling happy today, I have no idea why!").

Fear and aggression are emotional, this is an accepted idea in most of ethology and comparative psychology. Yes, emotions can occur in absence of behavior, but that dose not mean that behavior occurs in the absence of emotion, you argument here is essentially baseless. Tell me then how do you separate the neuro-physiological, and hormonal responses with there dependent behavior, you cant, because they are basically the same thing (unless you still believe that there is some supernatural force in it)!! Because the physiology of brain is linked with behavior, you can talk about behavior on different levels of analysis. Emotion is already an accepted by most endocrinologists, and increasing so by ethologists. Anticipation behavior as a measure of emotional wellbeing is becoming increasing popular, especially in animal welfare science. You seem to not be to familiar with the literature of animal behavior an not "up" with the workings of behavioral scientists. I will post some more peer reviewed literature for you, so you don't have to hear it from me (just a lowly graduate student) but from more established scientists, as this will probably be more convincing for yourself. If you cant get the PDF's I would be happy to send them to you.

The behavioural ecology of personality: consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00618.x

Situational factors, conditions and individual variables which
can determine ultrasonic vocalizations in male adult Wistar rats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17367876&dopt=Citation

Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology
Peter J. Langa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, Margaret M. Bradleya and Bruce N. Cuthberta
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07357036

A note on reward-related behaviour and emotional expressions in farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes) - Basis for a novel tool to study animal welfare
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=457046&md5=f677d923d6ec51f80d3395eaa567567d

Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d075p131.pdf

How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2007/00000016/A00102s1/art00005

I have a lot more.......

 

[rozinante]

Defenceless? You've never handled a Blue Tit! But I do agree with you on one point there - trophy photos (which are against BTO guidelines, by the way, but nobody seems to be censured for it). Photos can be invaluable for learning for other ringers, pointing out differences in age and moult etc. But there is little justification for trophy photos, except maybe for publicity/posters etc. However, the stress is unlikely to be increased by a few seconds in front of a camera.

Language such as "tiny defenceless creature" is a bit emotive for a serious debate though. All birds have defences for a start, and most use them.

I do understand the value of photos Poecile. I note though that you do recognise the particular type of photos I was referring to.

You seemed to have overlooked the fact that my final paragraph was expressing my "urge" to protest when faced with such photos. I am sure you would agree that urges do not always comply with rational thought. Hence the inclusion of scientifically unsound terms like "tiny defenceless creature" and even "great sausage fingers".

Personally while not allowing such emotions to dominate my decision making, I will not totally dismiss them for the sin of being unscientific. Perhaps birds and biology have no emotion but we certainly have. We are a major part of the equation, and our emotions are a major part of us.

I also consider that my description of the birds being tiny and defenceless stands when the relative power, intent, and ingenuity of the foe are taken into account. (Tried a few different words instead of foe here, they all seem too negative, not intended)

It is scientifically acceptable to talk about emotions]

I for one am very glad to hear that.

 

[KnockerNorton]

"Stress is not an emotion, it's a physiological state of being. Like fear, or aggression. They are not emotions either, they're respnses to stimuli. Emotions can be independent of stimuli ("I'm feeling happy today, I have no idea why!").

Fear and aggression are emotional, this is an accepted idea in most of ethology and comparative psychology. Yes, emotions can occur in absence of behavior, but that dose not mean that behavior occurs in the absence of emotion, you argument here is essentially baseless. Tell me then how do you separate the neuro-physiological, and hormonal responses with there dependent behavior, you cant, because they are basically the same thing (unless you still believe that there is some supernatural force in it)!! Because the physiology of brain is linked with behavior, you can talk about behavior on different levels of analysis. Emotion is already an accepted by most endocrinologists, and increasing so by ethologists. Anticipation behavior as a measure of emotional wellbeing is becoming increasing popular, especially in animal welfare science. You seem to not be to familiar with the literature of animal behavior an not "up" with the workings of behavioral scientists. I will post some more peer reviewed literature for you, so you don't have to hear it from me (just a lowly graduate student) but from more established scientists, as this will probably be more convincing for yourself. If you cant get the PDF's I would be happy to send them to you.

The behavioural ecology of personality: consistent individual differences from an adaptive perspective
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00618.x

Situational factors, conditions and individual variables which
can determine ultrasonic vocalizations in male adult Wistar rats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17367876&dopt=Citation

Emotion, motivation, and anxiety: brain mechanisms and psychophysiology
Peter J. Langa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, Margaret M. Bradleya and Bruce N. Cuthberta
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07357036

A note on reward-related behaviour and emotional expressions in farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes) - Basis for a novel tool to study animal welfare
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=457046&md5=f677d923d6ec51f80d3395eaa567567d

Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish
http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d075p131.pdf

How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2007/00000016/A00102s1/art00005

I have a lot more.......

I'm willing to take your word for most of this as, you're right, it's on the outer fringes of my field. But i still take exception with your term, which was my original beef, "birds have rich emotional lives". I think that's a statement too far based on the available evidence to date, which anyone from any field is able to assess. I am open to the idea that many mammals may have emotional repertoires in the sense that we understand and use that word, but I am not convinced that this is the same for birds. The sticking point may just be terminology and phraseology, but the word 'emotion' is itself 'emotive' and unless you can show me a good paper asserting explicitly that birds have 'rich emotional lives', then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[John Morgan]

John - If you read the previous posts back to 119 you will see that this 'debate' has moved on from personal attacks - Sue's education (or lack of in your view) is entirely irrelevant to what I perceive to be a valid 'moral' and subjectively personal position on ringing albeit at complete odds with a scientific one. The use of 'cudgels' (your word) to hit someone who is trying to express a genuinely compassionate response to what they perceive as 'cruel' is disingenuous of you to a fault, regardless of whether that perception is grounded in good science or not

I have to disagree with you. I'll explain briefly why.

Have you ever read one of those tirades against evolution by the Jehovah's Witnesses? They are packed with fact that isn't. They cherry-pick disputes between scientists who are arguing over small details in evolutionary lineage. They stoop so low in their argument a limbo dancer would be jealous.

I'm sure Sue is quite sincere about her dislike of bird ringing and I am quite prepared to acknowledge her right to hold this view. But I abhor the use of misinterpreted information, creation of urban myth and it's promulgation, argument from rumour, etc., etc. She either does, or comes pretty close to doing, such things in all her posts. If you are ignorant about something, but know nothing about it, one should be forthright enough to say just that and no more.

By the way, I don't recall using the word 'cudgel' in any posts. Must be getting old|=(|

 

[Sue Wright]

Thank you very much indeed Deborah, your post was very well put indeed.

Many thanks, Sue.

You just can't refrain from the personal attacks though can you John, I won't say it's got anything to do with your education though as that would be rude.

"Cudgels" IS your word and is in post 131, bottom line. Disingenuous indeed.

I don't think a person's education has anything to do with this or any other debate, or at least it shouldn't have. However, just for your information I've always been proud that I did extremely well with both maths and science and would no doubt have achieved GCE level with both but for family circumstances.

Rozinante and Cognitive_Ethology can put points across in a far better way than I'm able to (even though I did excellently in English too) and I'm grateful to C_E for saying all that I wished as well as being able to get the appropriate links. As for the word 'vile' that you and others insist on bringing up, I was not talking about a person as you indicate, it was about the continued act of ringing.

With all that's now been said throughout these threads I see little point in continuing on when we differ so much in our views. I'm happy to leave things where they are and agree to disagree, but I was not going to let you put me down educationally when there is absolutely no need, and you had no right, to do so and I will not admit to being ignorant about ringing when I am not!

Sue.

 

[Collster]

so we can all be reassured that no harm comes to any birds that are rung, no birds are disturbed or put off during netting at breeding times and they all live happily ever after..

 

[Cognitive_Ethology]

Considering the welfare of the animals I think the best place to start is the training for beginning and novice banders. In the United Stated I know that you can simply be associated with someone with a master banders permit and start banding with no prior experience (at least in the United States, even though I am in Europe now I am unfamiliar with how it works, someone please enlighten me). While this is good because it attracts people to banding I think it has a negative influence on the welfare of birds caught in nets. There should be a mandatory course for all persons who are interested in banding, which would first teach how to set up a mist net to avoid predation of entangled birds and getting caught in surrounding foliage. Then move onto extraction first using models and then observing extractions until you are finally allowed to extract live birds. Then another section should deal with the actual handling and banding of the birds. There are already a few courses like these offered in the United states and Europe but as far as I know they are not required for banding positions, and I think they should be. Most of the problems associated with banding dose not come from the effects of the bands (although there are studies which have shown definitive changes in female and male mate choice associate with bands, and long term effects have not been sufficiently studied, but are probably minimal for small bands in small numbers) but in the extraction of birds from mist nets, time spent in bird bags and mishandling during banding.

 

[Ausable Bird Observatory]

Considering the welfare of the animals I think the best place to start is the training for beginning and novice banders. In the United Stated I know that you can simply be associated with someone with a master banders permit and start banding with no prior experience (at least in the United States, even though I am in Europe now I am unfamiliar with how it works, someone please enlighten me).

As a Canadian Master Bander in charge of a successful Bird Observatory, we have many volunteers coming and going on a weekly basis. Some have banding permits from other countries, other have little to no experience.

When someone come to us with no experience, I personally look after their development, and over the course of the past two years I have overseen people to a standard that they are ready for their own permit, as a sub-permitee of myself (therefore I am responsible for their actions and bands). I start people off with bird handling, teaching them how to handle the birds, and in the hand ageing, sexing and identification techniques....gradually as the individual is more comfortable, they are taught to extract birds out of mistnets.

It is important to understand that, as in the UK, the Master Permit holder is responsible for all actions that occur at his/her site, using his/her bands. Therefore, no-one is allowed to act unsupervised, without the correct permitting and experience.

It is in the interest of the banding scheme and long term banding operations, to train willing volunteers. However, permits are not handed out 'willey nilley', they has to be sufficient testimony and justification as part of a scientific project.

Due to the geography of the US and Canada, the majority of banding is done at bird observatories as part of long term migration monitoring efforts. As a result training courses are more difficult to organise (for example, in the whole of North America there are the same amount of banders as in the UK, but obviously the spacial distribution is much more sparse - making the arrangement of courses much more difficult). Most ongoing training therfore is offered at the Bird Observatories.

I hope this is of some help.

Peter Fearon

Banding & Education Co-ordinator
Ausable Bird Observatory

 

[John Morgan]

You just can't refrain from the personal attacks though can you John, I won't say it's got anything to do with your education though as that would be rude.

The observation about educational abilities matching the way people argue was intended as a general observation and not a personal attack (I don't know you, so how could it be?) If you found it so, I apologise for writing it so poorly and for any distress.

"Cudgels" IS your word and is in post 131, bottom line. Disingenuous indeed.

The phrase "take up cudgels" is a piece of idiom from way back (told you I was getting old) and has nothing to do with Deborah's insinuation that I wished to apply a cudgel to you or anyone disagreeing with me. In fact, if you read the post and don't try to cherry-pick as Deborah "disingenuously" did, you'll see that I was hoping someone here would raise the matter of multiple colour rings with the BTO. That is surely after your own heart, isn't it?

I don't think a person's education has anything to do with this or any other debate, or at least it shouldn't have. However, just for your information I've always been proud that I did extremely well with both maths and science and would no doubt have achieved GCE level with both but for family circumstances.

I disagree strongly. Although schooling is not the only, or even the best, way to acquire knowledge, it usually leaves its recipients better able to understand their surroundings. It also shows them how to learn, encouraging them to continue it throughout their lives.

I'm delighted to hear you excelled in maths and science. But why not continue to make progress in these subjects through the OU?

As for the word 'vile' that you and others insist on bringing up, I was not talking about a person as you indicate, it was about the continued act of ringing.

So nice persons can commit vile acts voluntarily, can they? There will be a few paedophiles around who will be heartened by this implied proposition||

I was not going to let you put me down educationally when there is absolutely no need, and you had no right, to do so and I will not admit to being ignorant about ringing when I am not!

I'd no intention of putting you down with my supposition about your innate abilities, but I have to maintain that you are indeed ignorant about ringing when you made several statements that were clearly wrong.

 

[bitterntwisted]

I will post some more peer reviewed literature for you.

A belated welcome to BF, CE, and thanks for posting these fascinating links. Really great suff, and great to have someone with your expertise and perspective on the forum.

Graham

 

[Mark Grantham]

someone please enlighten me

In a nutshell..... In Britain & Ireland, the training process for a general permit (with an endorsement to use mist nets) will take a minimum of 18 months. People train under the direct supervision of a trainer, who is licensed under a peer-reviewed system every five years. The length of training ensures that not only are people highly competent at all the skills needed, but that they have also experienced the full year (ringing during the winter, the breeding season, migration etc...) Depending on their training, their permit may also have restrictions placed on it. Typical restrictions would be on length of net used or species targeted. We wouldn't give someone an unrestricted general permit who had never mist-netted waders for example.

Once trained, someone is approved for a permit upgrade by their trainer, and all applications are then assessed by staff at the Ringing Unit. This only gives someone a provisional permit though, and though they can ring unsupervised, they are still responsible to their trainer. To gain a full permit, they must have at least a years experience operating unsupervised (and this is generally several years) and then be approved by their own trainer. They will then be assessed by an independent trainer and then their application will be further assessed by members of the BTO's Ringing Committee. This is a lengthy process (several months) but does ensure that our permit holders are very highly trained and motivated.

Add to this the extra endorsements must all be applied for separately (ringing nestlings, whoosh-netting, tape-luring, tape-luring in the breeding season, cannon-netting, working with helpers, colour-marking, disturbance to rare breeding birds etc...), and this is a very safe system.

Sorry if this has gone on, but at least it gives an idea of training in this country.

Mark Grantham
BTO Ringing Scheme

 

[Cognitive_Ethology]

Thanks!

 

[StuartReeves]

This thread seems like a good example of the benefits of ringing: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=100980

 

[Xenospiza]

This Sanderling was ringed in Iceland on May 21, 2007: http://www.birdclubkatwijk.nl/bck/images/imgHomepage/drieteenstrandlopers1.jpg
A ring or three too much, I think... although it does not seem to bothered by them.

 

[KnockerNorton]

This Sanderling was ringed in Iceland on May 21, 2007: http://www.birdclubkatwijk.nl/bck/images/imgHomepage/drieteenstrandlopers1.jpg
A ring or three too much, I think... although it does not seem to bothered by them.

Well, exactly, the bird probably isn't bothered. so if you look at your question, what you're really saying is that it's 'too many rings' for YOU. The sanderling seems fine, so who are you to say it's too much?

 

[Black Wheatear]

I'm willing to take your word for most of this as, you're right, it's on the outer fringes of my field. But i still take exception with your term, which was my original beef, "birds have rich emotional lives". I think that's a statement too far based on the available evidence to date, which anyone from any field is able to assess. I am open to the idea that many mammals may have emotional repertoires in the sense that we understand and use that word, but I am not convinced that this is the same for birds. The sticking point may just be terminology and phraseology, but the word 'emotion' is itself 'emotive' and unless you can show me a good paper asserting explicitly that birds have 'rich emotional lives', then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I would have to agree with you and disagree with CE. CE's references made interesting reading, but for every six experts who agree on one basic issue, you’ll find another half-dozen who will disagree. In whatever field of study, and however supposedly scientific said study claims to be (quantum mechanics has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect and/or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle; and we all know the state of the art re. the origin of the species, etc.).

It is notorious that all the students attending a certain faculty during a certain period will agree on certain basics. Likewise a group of experts working together in a group. Discordant voices are either forced out or forced to keep quiet. Expressions such as “All the experts agree ...” are weasly and directly untrue if taken out of context: “All the experts in the working group agreed ...” The reasons for such discrepancy are irrelevant. They can be justified using the “scientific method” and they can be equally demonstrated to be false, or, at best, incomplete, using another, equally valid, “scientific method”.

After spending a lifetime working/studying wildlife and in particular birds, then I also find asserting birds have rich emotional lives to be incredulous, nice thought maybe, but only if you leave sanity behind!

 

[Andy Darrington]

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb39/AndyDarrington/?action=view&current=_Q1F0316.jpg

Hope this link works. Good job we have global warming

Andy

 

[KorHaan]

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb39/AndyDarrington/?action=view&current=_Q1F0316.jpg

Hope this link works. Good job we have global warming

Andy

The link works.
This Blue Tit with ice reminds me of my question about the Bewick's Swan with ice around the neckring ( post 14, page 1 ) nobody was able to answer, but which I found to be an important negative impact ( I think nobody believed a thing like this could ever happen ).

Thanks for posting this photo, Andy; I also hope it's not fake ( though that would be nice for the Blue Tit of course...)

Greetings, Ronald

 

[Andy Darrington]

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

 

[Firetail]

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.