Ringing, good or bad? [Archive] - Surfbirds Bird Forums

Derek Moore

December 1st, 2008, 07:16 PM

I am sure I should not get involved in this but anyway:

As in all forms of the great bird interest there will be a minority (hopefully minute) that will not behave the way they should.

In the main ringing, banding whatever you want to call it has many more positives than negatives. I was a ringer for many, many years until two spine operations made this pastime less attractive. I was one of the people who created Landguard Bird Observatory and throughout its now longish history there has been a high standard of ringing activity including contingencies for showing rare birds to people when it was possible. I will never forget hurrying along the line of over excited birders with a Blyth's Reed Warbler in my hand so they could all get a glimpse before the release of the bird. Even then the bird was only kept for about 15 minutes. The bird always comes first and whatever the pressure from birders that will always be the case.

The British Ringing system is the most disciplined and well run of any in the World. I have been critical of some practises noted overseas particularly in USA and especially the holding of raptors for more than an hour and then pitch them into a rather macho demonstration to the public.

Sure birds do die in the hand. It has happened to me with Bullfinch and Goldcrest. The latter had probably crossed the North Sea the previous night and was near death anyway. When you consider that the majority of small birds lose huge numbers in their first year to a plethora of other causes I think the deaths from ringing are less than miniscule.

The benefits of the ringing scheme are huge. It is not a matter of identifying rarities but more of discovering the migration routes, patterns and most importantly changes and perhaps even more significant the longevity of species.

This information may not be of great interest to many birders but it is essential for those engaged in the conservation of our birds. When I was working for the Wildlife Trusts I encouraged constant effort sites to be set up on reserves. The information obtained was so essential in drawing up management plans for the habitats.

My personal view is that there could still be improvements to the Ringing Scheme run of course by the BTO. I would like to see every ringer submit a programme of intended work annually before getting a permit. That way ringing could be targetted to species where knowledge is needed. Most current work would fulfill a needy criteria but I do question the constant ringing of Blue Tits etc in a garden.

Like most things - Twitchers, Photographers etc. Ringers have a responsibilty to carry out their activities to the letter of "The Ringers Handbook" and woe betide them if they do not.

MichaelF

December 1st, 2008, 07:24 PM

One additional point in favour is the hope that perhaps at least some grouse moor gamekeepers might hold off shooting / poisoning raptors for fear that the one they hit might be carrying a radio transmitter

Collalba

December 1st, 2008, 08:03 PM

Like most things - Twitchers, Photographers etc. Ringers have a responsibilty to carry out their activities to the letter of "The Ringers Handbook" and woe betide them if they do not.

Hi Derek,

I am sure you meant 'Unlike' rather than 'Like' ? Otherwise your post says it all for me.

:err:

Derek Moore

December 1st, 2008, 09:18 PM

Yes that is a clumsy sentence - I can see what you mean but I did intend to suggest that others have responsibilities as well as ringers.

Colin Key

December 1st, 2008, 09:39 PM

Derek has made a very sensible and reasoned response from someone who obviously has a great deal of experience, and I respect his viewpoint.

I am not an ornithologist but I am a scientist (geologist) and underlying scientific principles are fairly constant across the gamut of science, especially natural sciences, regarding input versus output (or returns on your work, to put it more simply).

I do not have a problem with the routine ringing of high volume migrants with a view to establishing data on movement and longevity. I recall watching a very good programme on BBC2 many years ago about two Dutch guys who were trapping and ringing Knot in large numbers; two things struck me - the incredibly delicate way in which the birds were handled, and the fascinating story which unfolded from their recovery data.

What I cannot condone is this modern trend of "birders turned ringers" who are trained to get a ringing license for no other reason than that they want to "fondle" birds. It seems to become an all-consuming passion for them and their only conversation is of "net ticks" and biometric trivia. These people are not professional scientists, they are hobbyists who are indulging themselves in a type of avian pornography; I have observed then almost fighting to be first at the nets and then literally salivating at the thought of getting their catch (struggling little birds in cotton bags hung as festoons around their necks) back to the ringing table so they can measure, weigh and generally molest these terrified birds.

There are a number of specific events which have particularly turned me away from ringing:

1. My wife and I passed a local ringing station (I am being careful not to mention names or organisations here) one afternoon when the nets were up and we saw a female Blackbird trapped and her mate was close by and in great distress. My wife was disturbed by this but I assured her that the nets were cleared every 15-20 minutes and that all would be well. When we returned two hours later the male Blackbird was also trapped and the female had died. I got out to investigate and found a Woodchat Shrike also trapped and very weak, and an Azure-winged Magpie which had been there so long that it was not only dead but totally dessicated (this was late summer and the temperature was 30+º C). I stormed into the ringing centre (after ripping the nets to allow the shrike to escape) to find that the warden was away and that the person (a Portuguese) who was doing a ringing demonstration that morning had gone home and forgotten to roll up the nets.

2. I found an Eagle Owl locally several years ago, a lifer for me. It was a young male (we think) and had set up territory. It was even seen by one of my (non birding) neighbours who described seeing a "huge owl" carrying off one of her cats at dusk. I took my wife to see the bird the following day - we not only found the owl but also the remains of its dinner, three plucked Cattle Egret remains. My sighting was confirmed by a well known visiting Dutch birder and it remained in the same stand of pines for several weeks. During a conference at the local ringing centre a bunch of complete tossers decided that it would be a good idea to trap and ring this bird. With nets, live bait and flood lights they attempted to do so but failed - the bird was not seen again.

3. On 16th November 2006 Portugal's first Moussier's Redstart (the very same bird as depicted in my avatar) was found at Cabo de São Vicente. I successfully photographed the bird two days later, one of my shots appearing in Birding World (Issue 239, page 454). This bird remained faithful to the site and I was able to show it to quite few people for whom it was a lifer. The last time I went to take a friend from Lisbon to see it we encountered a couple of British expats who lived in France, were on holiday in Southern Spain, had seen the photos of the bird on my blog, and had decided to come over to the Algarve especially to see the bird. They told us that they had been there the day before, a Saturday, and did get a glimspe of the bird but then an "army" of hooligans had arrived, set up 200 metres of mist nets on bamboo poles, and proceeded to "beat the bushes" to drive the bird to the nets. They failed, but the bird disappeared. There was absolutely no point whatsoever in this action - they were trophy hunters looking for an elite "net tick", and had they trapped and ringed this gorgeos bird it would have served no scientific purpose at all.

I could go on, with more examples, but I find the whole business very depressing and my view on ringers and ringing will never change. They are total pillocks in my opinion.

Colin :no::nah::realmad:

forktail

December 1st, 2008, 10:32 PM

So what does the forum think?

Good or bad?

Good. Compared to a lot of current 'issues' in U.K. birding, ringing is a non-starter for me.
F.

Derek Moore

December 1st, 2008, 10:36 PM

I knew I should not get into this.

Colin I had great sympathy with your words until the last sentence.

The examples you quoted are totally unacceptable and I assume all of these were Portuguese. If this sort of thing was proven to have happened in the UK particularly the example of nets being left up and people going home then all hell would have broken loose. I have never heard of this happening in the UK. Indeed most ringing groups have disciplines which prevent this happening.

I accept there is a danger in ringers getting a bit twitchy and wanting to catch a rarity just to get a ringing tick. This is why in the UK ringers are encouraged to work in groups and peer pressure then ensures the best of practises.

Reading your response early on you give the impression of being a professional but your final sentence sadly reflects a severe lack of professionalism. These sorts of remarks frankly leave others asking Who on this occasion is the real "pillock".

This is my last word on this matter

Collalba

December 2nd, 2008, 09:05 AM

I could go on, with more examples, but I find the whole business very depressing and my view on ringers and ringing will never change. They are total pillocks in my opinion.

Colin :no::nah::realmad:

Oh dear Colin! A very good post up until the last sentence.

The most compelling evidence for the non-impact of ringing is the incredibly close comparison of longevity of various species by ringing recoveries and population studies.

Constant effort sites and age related total remain much the most effective, accurate and reliable method for determining population dynamics and breeding success.

and... the decline in House Sparrows would have been picked up much earlier than it was had House Sparrows not been on the list "not for ringing" in the 70's and 80's.

Disagree with ringing on grounds of your personal values by all means, but please don't try and use lack of conservational value as a means to justify your personal view.

See attachment below. (Sorry I couldn't successfully upload .pdf)

S.R. Baillie G. Boobyer C.M. Perrins A. Brenchley D.M. Bryant S.J. Ormerod M.M. Rehfisch M.L. Tasker J.D. Wilson 1999 The conservation uses of ringing data. Conclusions of the JNCC/BTO Workshop Ringing and Migration 19 (Supplement) S119-S127,

The argument in support of ringing is that the disturbance is minimal - there are many ringers who "suffer" frequently repeated captures in baited potter traps. Birds find the reward of a mealworm adequate compensation (or they have very short memories) and it takes a lot of data to get meaningful statistics that can be acted upon within a timeframe in which the management actions are still relevant.

However for the people (like Colin) who are anti-ringing, I suspect that this isn't about facts and figures, its about personal values. If the tables were turned and someone presented me with believable data in support of hunting birds with a gun and dogs, there is no amount of evidence that could convince me to drop my opposition.

Colin Key

December 2nd, 2008, 10:34 AM

My apologies for wrongly labeling all ringers as "pillocks", it was not my intention. I was referring to these mindless, gung-ho individuals who are doing it as a hobby, an extension to or replacement for their birding, and to whom the scientific aspect is of little significance. I have been in the company of these people many times, some of them are friends of mine, but I absolutely detest their frame of mind that anything and everything has to be trapped and ringed.

If you go back to my post you will see that I stated that I have no real problem with the planned ringing of large numbers of migrants, or the ringing of chicks at the nest (Osprey, Flamingo, Spoonbill, etc), for the purpose collecting scientific data and information. It is those totally mindless idiots who see it as no more than a game, and there are an increasing number of them who are doing the rounds of bird observatories and ringing stations world-wide, in the role of volunteers, in pursuit of their "hobby". They gain a feeling of self importance which, in their minds, puts them one notch above ordinairy birders. They think they are one step further forward to becoming ornithologists - they are not, they are pillocks.

I also detest even more the targeting of individual rarities which, for the most part, serves no useful purpose whatsoever. A recent example (which I have referred to before in another thread) was the gorgeous male Isabelline Shrike in Southern Spain which was posing beautifully for photographers. I intended going to see that bird but when I made a last minute check on "Rare Birds Spain" the photographs were of the bird "in the hand", with ring, and having its wings stretched and being otherwise "interfered with". Of course, that was the last that was seen of it. We knew what the bird was, it did not need its biometrics recorded, and the chances of recovering that ring are probably zilch. So what was the point in trapping it? Many years ago now I saw my first Woodchat Shrike in the "desert" area not far from the observatory at Dungeness. A lot of people, for whom it was a lifer, went to see that bird. It was so gorgeous I went back again the following day, a Saturday, and found quite a large crowd there. We were watching the bird at a safe distance from behind a thicket of bramble when out of the bushes came two young guys with a trap baited with live beetles which they put on the ground near the bush where the bird was. The shrike was down and in the trap in a matter seconds, they guys retrieved the trap and retreated very quickly back to the observatory. I could not believe how quickly this all happened. Everyone there was initially gobsmacked, and then furious. The sense of anger increased as more folk arrived only to be told what had happened. If those two guys had reappeared they would have been lynched. What right did these people have to spoil the enjoyment of so many other people? What right did they have to trap this bird, full stop?

I know quite a large number of birders, and I meet a very large number of visiting birders/birdwatchers - I can assure you that the majority view on ringing is more in line with my views.

And by the way, the term "pillock" is a relatively mild form of terminology; at times I can think of other much more appropriate words which I would not be allowed to use on this forum.

Colin :hmpf:

Odonate

December 2nd, 2008, 10:34 AM

Hi all

I think that Colin has had some very bad experiences which have left him angry and disillusioned. In my experience, these must be extremely isolated incidents and are, as Colin says, completely unacceptable.

I am not sure that I can agree with the birders turned ringers statement. Learning to ring in the UK and in those countries in Europe that I can speak for, is a serious investment of time and effort and is not undertaken lightly. I can also say that I have never met a ringer who was remotely interested in adding net ticks by means other than serendipity. On occasions, ringers may want to target certain species for instance because there has been an influx of that species and they would like to: a) study them in the hand to learn more about the sexing/aging/racial identification of that species b) for the possibility of controls or those birds being subsequently retrapped out of interest for the movements of these birds.

There has also been a lot said about keeping rare birds for people. This, in my experience does not happen excessively. There are many logistical reasons why it is better to process a rare bird as the last bird of a net round. Not least because it does take longer to process and in that way the other birds caught in that round can be released. Why does it take longer to process a rare bird you may be asking? Firstly, there is the identification issue - a bird may not be ringed unless the identity is without doubt and it is obvious that it takes longer for an unfamiliar species (more biometrics may need to be taken). The same for the ageing and sexing. With a rare bird, the decision is often taken not to release it into the middle of the ringing area but on the edge in such a way that a) it is less likely that it will be recaptured and b) so that a compromise is reached so that birders/twitchers have the chance of seeing the bird without disrupting the ringing activities. The bird may also be presented for photographs. This is also a compromise - one minute more in the hand to save an entire day of being flogged out of every bush by birders.

I would also disagree with the phrase "biometric trivia". For a geek like me, these biometric data are fascinating and important scientifically. In Britain we do not take much biometric data (max cord, weigth, age, sex and sometimes fat/muscle) whereas in Europe, many more measurements are taken (tarsus, bill, 3rd primary and often many more). It seems that 20 seconds more in the hand for a wealth of extra data is little.

With regard to welfare, many first time watchers of ringing may find that the process seems rough on the birds. However, if you have extracted and ringed thousands of birds, you know exactly how to perform the process in the minimum amount of time to cause the minimum amount of inconvenience to the bird. Some species are particularly vocal in the hand and give the the impression of being under stress while almost identical species are silent (Reed Warbler vs Marsh Warbler for instance). I have experienced vanishingly few episodes where a bird has been harmed by ringing (from tens if not hundreds of thousands of birds I have seen ringed). It is obvious that the birds will become a bit agitated as the process is unatural for them but this is kept to a minimum and the scientific basis of ringing relies on the fact that ringed birds behave exactly as unringed birds and this is obvious when you see recoveries of species that have migrated to Africa and back 10 times or British Swallows that are recaught a few weeks later in South Africa.

beltonbirder

December 2nd, 2008, 10:41 AM

landguard is the place to observe very good ringing practice. I have found on open days that all the ringers there are very good at showing the visitors how and why they ring birds, I have never seen birds held for longer than possible. It is as far as I am concerened the top place to see ringing and the way that it is carried out is tip top.

Now the bird fair at Rutland. The riinging demonstration there is more of a show and I feel that the birds that are presented there and shown to the crowd much more detrimental to the birds than it should be.

So if you want to see exemplorary ringing then visit Landguard point where they really do put the birds first.

I am a warden on my loacl Nature Reserve and have allowed CeS work there for many years, The reward for doing so is the production of an annual ringining report from the ringer.

I would also like to thank everyone for their comments, this has turned out to be a nice chatty post without any anomosity.

Colin.
BB (Colin)

huwbob

December 2nd, 2008, 11:02 AM

At the risk of wading in with my first post.......

I have seen ringing first hand for many years, I have always seen the birds treated with respect and with the minimum amount of handling. However, as a grown up I understand that not everyone sticks to the same set of principles, and I agree bad ringers should be dealt with. I do think though it's unfair to tar all ringers with the same brush. I'm sure most birders park in the car parks or where it is safe, do not wander off footpaths and do not damage farmers crops to get their tick, but I'm sure we can all quote instances of this not happening. Let's not make this a debate on the individuals, rather the overall principles.

I think ringing provides valuable information to us all, I for one agree with it.

Collalba

December 2nd, 2008, 12:36 PM

My apologies for wrongly labeling all ringers as "pillocks", it was not my intention.
And by the way, the term "pillock" is a relatively mild form of terminology; at times I can think of other much more appropriate words which I would not be allowed to use on this forum.
Colin :hmpf:

Thank you Colin. Although the term 'Pillock' can be also be construed as being very harsh to those of us involved with using our best endeavours and intentions to further 'our' knowledge and understanding for those beloved birds.

Paul Bourdin

December 3rd, 2008, 09:50 AM

Colin Key

December 3rd, 2008, 06:52 PM

I'm a birder and ex-ringer, and I can sympathise greatly with Colin's position. My ringing experience has been mainly in South Africa, where standards are very much lower than the UK, and "bird fondlers" are the norm rather than the exception. I have seen several birds die in the hand (particularly White-throated Robin for some reason). I stopped ringing several years ago because of a general unease as to the value of my data within the South African context.

I agree strongly with the idea that ringing must have a stated purpose, and will return to ringing again should I find a project that fits the bill.

Thanks for that contribution Paul (and welcome to the forum, by the way) - it is good to hear another perspective from another part of the world. I think that everyone assumes that the "controls" on ringing worldwide are as strict as they are with the BTO in the U.K., but my experience leads me to believe that that is not the case.

I would quite like this thread to continue as long as people don't get their "feathers ruffled" too much.

Best wishes,

Colin

Brian S

December 5th, 2008, 10:25 AM

Further to all of the above, I have thought about the following a bit over the past few years, and I have sometimes wondered if all the information that could be gathered from 'trapping' a bird is being collected. These are just some personal thoughts/ramblings to provoke discussion.

1. Amount of data from a metal ring alone. Someone might be able to give me the facts, but I suspect that only a small percentage of birds that have a metal ring put on them are either controlled at another ringing site or found dead.

2. Colour rings. The placement of a colour ring (or colour rings), visible in the field is surely likely to provide more data, when (the larger number of) field observers can see the colour combination or read a code on the ring. I can give two examples: the first is gulls; the second is Twite. On gulls, colour-ringing has been going on for a few years now, and I suspect that more has been learnt about the movement/ageing/identification of gulls during this period than over the many preceding years of simply metal-ringing (satellite tracking is now taking this a step further). On Twite, the local flock at Walberswick is about 60% colour-ringed, and you can sit with your 'scope and read the colour combinations. From this we have learned that the birds here come exclusively from the Peak District and not abroad as had been suspected. There are other examples, but one might feel that this method 'opens up' bird-ringing to the wider birding community and helps us to understand and accept it more.

3. Blood or feather samples. This is a sensitive issue and likely to prove contentious, but I will wade in anyway. If during handling a small feather sample was taken (perhaps a or part of a tail feather, which could easily be lost at any stage naturally, and not affect the bird), a huge amount of information could be gained. Isotope work could identify the area from which a bird is coming (in these days of concerns about habitat loss/change or bird 'flu' surely such information is very important); DNA work could identify the gene pool from which migrants are coming, and even help prove identification of vagrants.

I am sure that the BTO is adressing or discussing these issues, and already use various methods under licence, but I wonder if there might be a rethinking of general ringing practise.

Am I alone in thinking these thoughts?

Brian S

MichaelF

December 5th, 2008, 12:40 PM

On Twite, the local flock at Walberswick is about 60% colour-ringed .... From this we have learned that the birds here come exclusively from the Peak District and not abroad as had been suspected.
It doesn't prove that; it just proves that 60%+ come from the Peak District- you can't say anything about the origins of the unringed ones! They could still be from abroad.

Alex Lees

December 5th, 2008, 12:43 PM

Colin Key

December 5th, 2008, 01:27 PM

1. Amount of data from a metal ring alone. Someone might be able to give me the facts, but I suspect that only a small percentage of birds that have a metal ring put on them are either controlled at another ringing site or found dead.

Brian S

This is a question I have often asked (of those involved with ringing), and received widely varying answers. Someone who's opinions I respect said he suspected it was "a fraction of one percent (recoveries)".

I agree with Alex about the cost of more sophisticated biochemical investigation being untenable. I have been involved in university funding and know a bit about how the Research Councils (in my case NERC) work, and suspect that this type of research would be given low priority (maybe zero priority if you have read in the past couple of days how British universities are due to be affected by the general financial situation).

I have some comments to make on colour ringing, but I need to search for some photos to attach - will post again later.

Colin

beltonbirder

December 5th, 2008, 04:02 PM

Was there any DNA evidence on the Slender billed Curlew mass hallucination at Minsmere?

MichaelF

December 5th, 2008, 04:45 PM

Yes, it was a [Eurasian] Curlew.

Of course that was proven from a turd, not from ringing.

Alex Lees

December 5th, 2008, 05:32 PM

This is a question I have often asked (of those involved with ringing), and received widely varying answers. Someone who's opinions I respect said he suspected it was "a fraction of one percent (recoveries)".

I'm sure you can do better than someone's opinion Colin. This from Baillie (1995):

Over 110 million birds have been ringed in Europe giving rise to 1.8 million recoveries. Some 64% of these recoveries are held in the computerized EURING data bank. Passerines comprise 43% of all recoveries and only 15% are of waterfowl. Currently, about 4 million birds are ringed each year and 90 000 recoveries are reported.

So ring 100 birds and you get one recovery. Of course recovery rates are massively different comparing say British Storm Petrels and Mute Swans to Goldcrests and Willow Warblers.....

Alex

Brian S

December 5th, 2008, 06:11 PM

It doesn't prove that; it just proves that 60%+ come from the Peak District- you can't say anything about the origins of the unringed ones! They could still be from abroad.

Michael F might like to know that unringed Twite at Walberswick have been trapped and ringed and guess what? They turn up in the Peak District or near Manchester!

Brian S

Colin Key

December 5th, 2008, 06:43 PM

I'm sure you can do better than someone's opinion Colin. This from Baillie (1995):

Over 110 million birds have been ringed in Europe giving rise to 1.8 million recoveries. Some 64% of these recoveries are held in the computerized EURING data bank. Passerines comprise 43% of all recoveries and only 15% are of waterfowl. Currently, about 4 million birds are ringed each year and 90 000 recoveries are reported. [/I]

So ring 100 birds and you get one recovery. Of course recovery rates are massively different comparing say British Storm Petrels and Mute Swans to Goldcrests and Willow Warblers.....

Alex

The terms "over" and "about" are mathematically inadequate in my book Alex. Tip the numbers slightly (within the possible large margin of error) and you have my (second hand) estimate of a "fraction of one percent".

Or maybe you were just reinforcing what I had stated?

Regards,

Colin

forktail

December 5th, 2008, 07:18 PM

Colin Key

December 5th, 2008, 08:54 PM

Colin,

seems like we're getting hung up on a minor point

recovery rates across the board are close to 1% and not 'a fraction of 1%' - I know 'close' is a relative term but we all know what is meant by it.

seems to be pretty clear to me that 1% is a reasonable and solid estimate - with the caveat that Alex mentioned of obviously differing recovery rates that are a product of the vagaries of individual species' lifecycles

The Migration Atlas is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in migration, and necessarily also has an enormous amount of ringing-programme generated data - you don't need to be a ringer to gain a huge amount of pleasure and interest from the book though. Highly recommended.

F.

I am not being pedantic Tim, and on reflection I think that Alex was just re-stating what I had "loosely" said: 0.99% is a "fraction of one percent!!".

Going back to an earlier post, I said that scientifically one has to consider input (work) against results/returns. I find that a recovery rate of 1% or less (and I honestly believe it is much less than stated, but cannot prove that), does not justify ringing.

That argument/discussion will, or could, go on forever due to lack of reliable data.

My personal stance here is that I question the right of anyone to pursue any practice which puts wild (or domestic) animals under undue or unnecessary stress or pain for any purpose whatsoever. I have witnessed some of the most adverse of effects of the trapping and ringing of wild birds, and I disagree with the practice totally and completely. I would prefer to see it banned, in the same way that I would like to see fishing (the U.K.'s most popular participation "sport") made illegal.

This is my personal feeling and viewpoint, and I am entitled to it.

Regards,

Colin

P.S. I have in the past, being brought up in a farming community in Cumbria, committed heinous crimes against nature: egg collecting, progressing from air guns to shot guns to shoot birds, snaring and netting rabbits with ferrets, etc. and enjoying "game fishing" for brown trout, seatrout and salmon. With age (I was 60 last week) comes a change of emotions and I could no longer pursue these "country pastimes" any longer.

MichaelF

December 5th, 2008, 09:17 PM

0.99% is a "fraction of one percent!!"
Yeah, it is, but we all know that when someone says "a fraction of one percent" they're meaning a very small fraction of one percent . . . something like maybe 0.05% :wink:

Alex Lees

December 6th, 2008, 06:36 PM

Hi Colin

I thought I'd better qualify my position here, so apologies for dissecting your post....

I am not being pedantic Tim, and on reflection I think that Alex was just re-stating what I had "loosely" said: 0.99% is a "fraction of one percent!!".

Going back to an earlier post, I said that scientifically one has to consider input (work) against results/returns. I find that a recovery rate of 1% or less (and I honestly believe it is much less than stated, but cannot prove that), does not justify ringing.

I am nominally agreeing with you, pan-European recovery rates are in the region of 1%, recovery rates of UK-ringed birds are around 2% (Hartley 2003 (http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/9119/1/http___docstore.ingenta.com_cgi-bin_ds_deliver_1_u_d_ISIS_44423694.1_bto_bird_2003 _00000050_00000001_art00016_7A86C229F60E03D4121189 67173F1CE291DA3FBC27.pdf_link%3Dhttp___www.ingenta connect.pdf)). Do you seriously believe that the rate is lower and there is some sort of conspiracy? Why would this be perpetuated, are all the thousands of published peer-reviewed papers on the subject based on falsified data? That is a pretty serious allegation.

The bottom line is we have 1.8 million recoveries, independent pieces of data that have contributed to our understanding of avian demographic trends and knowledge of movements. Note that ringing is a mark and recapture technique - much of what we know about annual population trends is generated from CES data. This has its problems - maturation of sites etc but is still the best data we have and in this case - every bird ringed contributes to the data set. A crude Google Scholar search generates 650 publications with the key words 'bird ringing' and 'conservation' (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22bird+ringing%22+conservation)(2840 for 'conservation' and 'bird banding' (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22bird+banding%22+conservation)). See Baillie (2003) (http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a89-167-184.pdf) for a meta-analysis of such studies.

That argument/discussion will, or could, go on forever due to lack of reliable data.

What do you base this assertion on? The 'end product' is the publication of thousands of documents that are used to answer scholarly questions, many (but not all) of which may contribute to the conservation of the birds concerned. Do you have a better non-invasive technique to gather this data?

My personal stance here is that I question the right of anyone to pursue any practice which puts wild (or domestic) animals under undue or unnecessary stress or pain for any purpose whatsoever. I have witnessed some of the most adverse of effects of the trapping and ringing of wild birds, and I disagree with the practice totally and completely. I would prefer to see it banned, in the same way that I would like to see fishing (the U.K.'s most popular participation "sport") made illegal.

Ringing is not a sport, I think the link is very tenuous, true any form of birding is analogous with 'hunter-gatherer' activities. People get a kick out of it, but the output is data rather than lunch or machismo validation. However I do agree with many of the detractors that these arguments are typically too polar. Birds do die as a result of ringing activities, no-one will deny this. We have to decide what is an acceptable level of mortality, balanced against the conservation benefits of the data gleaned. The impacts of ringing on bird survival have not been extensively studied, but impacts for some taxa are serious enough to warrant discontinuation in some cases - for a review of this (and a discussion of other techniques) see Gauthier-Clerc & Maho (2001) (http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a89-221-230.pdf). We should be vigilant and perhaps more effort should be made to address these potential ethical concerns. For my part, I have handled over 8000 birds of 300+ species across four Continents. I have only seen 3 birds die in the hand (and seen another two suffer from serious wing-strain) plus about 10 net-kills by raptors (including in one instance a Sharp-shinned Hawk killed by a Northern Goshawk). I do not know what impact my handling had on the birds afterwards. I have however also helped to remove non-target species from large baited traps (aviary style) designed to catch Brown-headed Cowbirds. We would repeatedly catch the same California Thrashers, California Towhees, Western Scrub-jays etc every day, and removing them from the traps was an extremely undignified and difficult affair, almost certainly very stressful to the birds, but not obviously enough for the same birds to make the same 'mistake' day after day. The same is true in many other situations and is perhaps one of the few ways we can interpret how the bird might perceive this situation. Obviously responses are likely to be highly species-specific. That's just my own personal experience.

That which you describe from Portugal sounds like criminal negligence and I have heard similar such stories from elsewhere in Europe. Only better training and stricter controls can rectify the situation, punishments should be harsher and IMO ringers should be examined and assessed more often. It is a pity that there is not more government funding and perhaps hence greater accountability for these schemes.

This is my personal feeling and viewpoint, and I am entitled to it.

True, and this is mine. I am sorry that you opinion on this data-collection technique has been poisoned by the actions of some negligent and inept ringers. I'd suggest taking a more balanced viewpoint though.

cheers

Alex

ps. Don't wait up for another post from me as I'm beyond email for a few days.

Simon Wates

December 7th, 2008, 12:49 AM

Without wanting to get into a detailed discussion, I would like to manifest my concern over the portrayal of Portuguese ringers (and British/foreign ringers) in Portugal earlier on in this discussion. I have been closely involved with the Portuguese ornithological community for some 14 years now and have made a number of very close friends. I have been impressed with their handling of ringing and have found them to be caring, responsible and competent ringers. They are just as excited about controlling a Blackcap with a ring from Belgium, for example, as bagging an unusual species. Also, I have found them to be deft and gentle retrieving birds from the net and orientate their activities on the basis of best practice and take great care about how long birds are in the nets or bags. I have never met a cocky, big-headed know-it-all Portuguese ringer - something I could not say about a small minority of British ringers. Fairly though, I suppose there will always be "one" that spoils it for the crew!

I am worried that Portuguese ringers have/will gained a negative reputation from this discussion and feel compelled to give my view.

Best wishes

Simon

Colin Key

December 7th, 2008, 07:47 PM

I am worried that Portuguese ringers have/will gained a negative reputation from this discussion and feel compelled to give my view.

Best wishes

Simon

Simon,

You are confusing "Portuguese ringers" with "ringers in Portugal" (although, fair does, you also refer to visiting ringers).

There are some excellent and very professional Portuguese ringers of all ages (we both know who they are) who I respect, despite my general and overall dislike of bird trapping and ringing.

Of the examples I have referred to above the person who left nets set which resulted in the suffering and death of some birds was Portuguese and the actions of this person were inexcusable. That person's ringing license should have been revoked, but I did not purse it for reasons I think you might appreciate.

The business of the attempted trapping of the Moussier's Redstart also involved twelve Portuguese people. As mentioned previously, I only got a second-hand version of events but the British couple who witnessed this were a retired university lecturer and a retired teacher from Canterbury; they did not lack integrity and I could see no evidence that they were exaggerating, let alone lying, about what they saw. They said that the previous day, after they themselves had managed to get a glimpse of the bird, three vehicles arrived with twelve occupants who immediately began setting up mist nets and then proceeded to beat the bushes with sticks to try and drive the bird to the nets. When challenged about their behaviour one of them told the British couple that they were acting on behalf of SPEA - this was a total lie since SPEA has nothing to do with the ringing programme in Portugal. These hooligans were there for one purpose only, to trap a rare bird as a "bit of sport" - totally unforgivable. Had I been there I would have photographed them, their vehicle license plates (from which I could have identified at least three of the culprits) and I would have "named and shamed" the whole f*****g lot of them. I think if I had been there there would also have been a good chance of a "physical conflict" between me and them.

The episode with the people attempting to "live bait" and net the Eagle Owl on Qta da Rocha involved British ringers (and, I might say, people of some "standing" who should have known better) - I am not prepared to name names but will tell you next time I see you. Again, even if they had been successful the ringing of that bird would have served no purpose whatsoever - they were "trophy hunting".

My main gripe in this thread is about the increasing number of amateur "hobbyists" who train and eventually get a ringing license for no other purpose than that they enjoy "bird fondling". Ringing is a process and a tool for ornithologists to gather statistical, geographic, age, etc. data for a scientific purpose. To these amateurs the trapping and ringing is the end purpose to their very limited desires - if you do not admit to that then I am afraid that you are deluding yourself.

I have spent a bit of time today perusing the "Bird Ringing and Banding" section of BirdForum. Very depressing (to me) and only serves to reinforce my viewpoint; I am not going to get into the "tittle tattle" of giving links to posts there, they are there for all to see, but people advertising their services as volunteers to any ringing station which will take them on, and one person stating "can't wait to get my hands on some of your western European warblers" just makes my puke. :hmpf: And one thread there about how old you have to be to begin training because his six year old son was keen to "get started" - apparently nine years old is the minimum age!

I am a birder/birdwatcher, not an ornithologist (and have no wish to be). I get my enjoyment form watching any birds in any environment (except maybe gulls - sorry Jan:SLEEP:), from finding scarce and rare birds, especially species I have never seen before, and increasingly from helping other less experienced birdwatchers to see birds and improve their field and I.D. skills. It would silly to say that I am not interested in some aspects of migration and bird distribution but on the whole I do not give a toss about the finer detail of ringing and recovery statistics, etc. I do know a few people who have more or less given up birding and "gone over to the other side"; they have become obsessed with trapping and ringing and I honestly do not understand this.

Colin

Colin Key

December 10th, 2008, 02:11 PM

Hi Colin

I thought I'd better qualify my position here, so apologies for dissecting your post....

cheers

Alex

ps. Don't wait up for another post from me as I'm beyond email for a few days.

Hello Alex,

I did not respond immediately to this since you indicated that you were going to be "off air" for a while.

I don't think that we are disagreeing about very much, except my previously stated stance that I am generally against trapping and ringing whereas you are an ornithologist and use it in pursuit of your research. I have also stated that I can live with that, and I know it will continue, but I would prefer to see the activity confined to professional scientists who have a "purpose in mind" rather than those on "the fringe" for whom (in my opinion) the trapping and ringing is the "be-all and end-all" - in other words, a pastime or hobby.

As to the numbers (of recoveries), 1%, a fraction of 1% or less than 1% are all pretty much the same (if we were contesting the difference between, say, 20% and 40% then that would be entirely different). I am also thinking in global terms rather than U.K. or Europe, and this might make a difference to the statistics. My personal view is that a recovery rate of this magnitude does not justify the process, but that is just my view.

Regards,

Colin

Alex Lees

December 18th, 2008, 04:23 PM

Hello Alex,

I did not respond immediately to this since you indicated that you were going to be "off air" for a while.

I don't think that we are disagreeing about very much, except my previously stated stance that I am generally against trapping and ringing whereas you are an ornithologist and use it in pursuit of your research. I have also stated that I can live with that, and I know it will continue, but I would prefer to see the activity confined to professional scientists who have a "purpose in mind" rather than those on "the fringe" for whom (in my opinion) the trapping and ringing is the "be-all and end-all" - in other words, a pastime or hobby.

As to the numbers (of recoveries), 1%, a fraction of 1% or less than 1% are all pretty much the same (if we were contesting the difference between, say, 20% and 40% then that would be entirely different). I am also thinking in global terms rather than U.K. or Europe, and this might make a difference to the statistics. My personal view is that a recovery rate of this magnitude does not justify the process, but that is just my view.

Regards,

Colin

Hi Colin

In an ideal world all ringing would be undertaken by pro-ornithologists, in the real world there aren't enough professional ornithologists (not enough money to pay them) to realise this. In order to generate lots of recoveries we need amateur ringers, most of the data has been generated by their efforts. As in many situations the few can tarnish the reputation of the many, as you have highlighted. Ringing is a hobby for many, albeit a hobby that generates scientific data - as is the case with many aspects of bird observation. People get a thrill from catching birds, no-one will deny that. If ringing wasn't fun then people wouldn't do it. I acknowledge that many people (like yourself) find it abhorent that people should be thrilled to hold a piece of wild nature in the hands for a short time (at the immediate expense of the bird). There is a cost associated with the activity, as we have outlined but this is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis and the benefits to science and conservation are many and varied as I tried to outline before.

I don't think I can pursue this recovery rate argument with you to any conclusion as your ideas about what constitutes good return for your money seem to be fundamentally different from mine. I do however invite you again to highlight how you would phase out the activity and generate similar demographic and migratory data that will inform conservation planners. If we could come up with some non-invasive method then that would obviously be preferable as ringing data does have some biases. However, in the current climate at least, I think Beyoncee should have the last word: "if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g)".

cheers

Alex

Colin Key

December 18th, 2008, 07:00 PM

Hi Colin

...... However, in the current climate at least, I think Beyoncee should have the last word: "if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g)".

cheers

Alex

Hello Alex,

I don't think we are too far apart in outlook from the scientific point of view. I have my deeply-entrenched views (for a variety of reasons, some of which I have aired here) on trapping and ringing which are unlikely to change - I take solace from the fact that I am not alone in my views.

As to "Beyoncee", never heard of it/she/he - after watching about ten seconds of that YouTube link (all I could stand) I suddenly feel very, very old!

Do you remember "Top of the Pops", "Pan's People" and the days when songs were songs, tunes were tunes, and girls were actually girls? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I have something to add on the subject of colour-ringing when I can manage to lay my hands on the appropriate photos (in response to a post by Brian above) which I would be interested to hear your opinion on.

Best,

Colin

Hirundo

December 21st, 2008, 07:13 AM

Nice video by Daniel Roca "Bird ringing - Life is wonderful":

http://surfbirds.com/video2/view_video.php?viewkey=a37bf1abd2f6c184fe1c

Colin Key

December 21st, 2008, 10:09 AM

Very, very nice piece of video, almost hypnotic. The video footage and the handling of the birds were both very professional. One discrepancy I thought, it concentrated on the release and return to freedom of the birds, but nothing on the actual trapping and collection from the nets!

What this sequence does illustrate very well is the allure of ringing and bird handling, and why a lot of people can get "hooked" on it.

Thanks for showing us this.

Colin

john robinson

December 30th, 2008, 09:49 PM

Alex Lees

January 3rd, 2009, 05:52 PM

I have read this thread with interest. My views on ringing - espcially the Pied flycatchers here in Wyre which are festooned with up to 4 rings are well known and documented.
I have numerous other bad examples of the sport which I have gathered over the past 70 years. I am in constant dialogue with the BTO over this and of course they will defend their own. They have though taken up a case recently of bad practice which [I] pointed out to them. I really do think that ringing has turned into more of a field sport and in my opinion we know enough about much of the normal migration patterns. Ringing may have been valuable 40 years ago. Do you realise how many swallows have been ringed in the past 5 years ? Ask the BTO for the answer and ask them how many recoveries.
The bit that hurts is the fact that" handling the birds " has no effect. The BTO has its own rules which state that a bird should only be photographed in the hand if the results are useful for ID in specific cases. That rule is blatently flouted by just about every ringing group I have ever come across.
They also say the bird should be released as soon as possible.
Enough said.
Not surprised at Colins " Pillock " comment. Thats mild - he usually advocates scratching the paint off cars .
JohnRobinson

Some hard-line views there John. The BTO try to be transparent when it comes to such problems - see this published paper (http://blx1.bto.org/pdf/ringmigration/23_4/pierce-colour.pdf)relating to problems with colour-ringing flycatchers. Is this the sort of problem you were referring to? The genus Ficedula has been an incredible source of information on avian reproductive strategies - cf this google scholar search (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=ficedula+ringing+reproductive).

Migration routes are dynamic - we are never going to reach an asymptote in our knowledge about them because they constantly change. Monitoring now is exceedingly important to look for signs of changes in migratory behaviour precipitated by anthropogenic climate change.....

Alex

Colin Key

January 3rd, 2009, 06:34 PM

Some hard-line views there John.
Alex

I cannot agree Alex that John's views are "hard-line" in any way whatsoever, and I am glad that John has chipped in with his opinions which are, I think, in line with mine.

We are talking about the ethics of ringing, not its usefulness or otherwise to ornithological science. There are far more birders/birdwatchers in this world than there are ornithologists, and I think you will find that there are more against than for ringing. It would be interesting if the RSPB did a survey amongst their 1.3 million members to see what the opinion was, but of course they would never do that on such a contentious topic.

I have cited a few examples of "bad practice" in previous posts and am putting together some material on "colour ringing" of birds for discussion when I manage to get the photos sorted out. In the meantime, here is another little "ditty" for consideration and opinions:

We recently had Portugal's second Rustic Bunting trapped and ringed by a young, enthusiastic and very professional ornithologist (I am going to be very careful here not to mention names, localities or organisations since I do not want this discussion to get 'personal' - if you know who I am referring to, please keep it to yourself). On another forum someone enquired about the first record of this species so I looked it up and found that it was ringed on 12th November 1990 at 22.00 hrs.

I found this odd since although I know the locality very well, and it is a beautiful place, you would not want to be there at 10.00 pm on a November night. A few other people picked this up on that forum and then someone from the ringing station gave an explanation: at the time, the procedure was to set the nets from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm at this location which is a few kilometres from the ringing station. At 6.00 pm the nets are taken down and the "bagged" birds are all taken back to the ringing station. The ringers then sat down to a nice dinner, after which the "bagged" birds were "processed", therefore accounting for the time that the ring was put on the bird as 22.00 hrs.

I do not know at what time this bird was actually trapped, but if it was at the start of the session (3.00 pm) then that bird could have been kept in its little cotton bag for a total of seven hours.

Can any of you ornithologists or ringers out there justify this?

To me, an absolute disgrace.

Colin :realmad:

Colin Key

January 3rd, 2009, 09:36 PM

Migration routes are dynamic - we are never going to reach an asymptote in our knowledge about them because they constantly change. Monitoring now is exceedingly important to look for signs of changes in migratory behaviour precipitated by anthropogenic climate change.....

Alex

And this, I am sorry to say, is just pure "Brain Fart".

Colin

forktail

January 3rd, 2009, 10:17 PM

This seems to be degenerating a little...

There are good and bad practicioners in all disciplines and in all walks of life. Beacuse there are some wayward individuals doesn't mean everyone has to be stopped from ringing or that every ringer goes about his/her business in the same way. There needs to be some semblance of a reasoned position taken or people will just switch off and see it as ranting, driven by personal experiences, with the intention to vilify the whole ringing community or ringing per se.

Ringing does add to knowledge and the benefits have been outlined time and again on various fora in various threads. In a similar hot potato vein, perhaps photography of birds should be reined in a bit seeing as there seems to be a fair few idiots around at the moment (see various fora, blog sites, magazines etc) - and rather more as a percentage than ringers, who have to go through a long and extensive training programme before they are allowed to practice their discipline.

Alternatively we could all just rub along together and highlight bad practice wherever possible and try to improve things that way. And that way no photographers will get lamped.:laugh::beer:

F

Alex Lees

January 4th, 2009, 11:23 AM

Colin (+ John)

I agree this is an ethical issue, however you can't divorce the two issues. Ring no birds = no dead birds = no data. Ring lots of birds = lots of data and some dead birds (IMO negligible at a population level cf here (http://www.sibleyguides.com/mortality.htm)). I am defending the utility of the data and not bad practice amongst poorly trained or criminaly negligent ringers. We need amateur ornithologists because otherwise we do not have the data.

Do you believe migration routes are constant? Are you a climate change denier? You must know the Blackcap story? I've appended a few papers but I'm sure you actually agree with me on this. This isn't 'brain fart' (couldn't find a peer-reviewed reference to this on google scholar, but offence noted ; ) Without this information we will have a much poorer knowledge of how the migratory behaviour of birds in the Palearctic-Afrotropical flyway is being impacted by our changing climate nor migratory plasticity as a whole. IMO we should also ring as many vagrants as possible.

Alex

Ps. As a thought exercise, and hopefully without too many knee-jerk reactions, what is the opinion people have of actually killing birds deliberately for science? I'll not share my opinion yet, but this is for me an issue where questions of morality are much more pertinent - have a read of this (http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1995BCI.PDF), this (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esc.350/Bekoff%20and%20Elzanowski1997i.pdf) and this (http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1997BCI.PDF).

Colin Key

January 4th, 2009, 02:30 PM

This seems to be degenerating a little...

F

I do not think that this is degenerating, even a little. It is a useful discussion and, as I said in a previous post, I would like to see it continue with more input from more people as long as "feathers are not ruffled" (or, at least, too much!).

As to my last comment to Alex (re: "Brainfart" - it is not meant to be offensive in any way Alex, it is an "Americanism" which translates as a jocular way of saying that you are not saying very much), I have noted that Alex has a propensity to try and enforce his arguments with citations. As any academic will tell you, this is a dangerous practice and when used to excess will render the proponent no more than a referee in a second- or third-hand discussion; it certainly detracts significantly from any original thought or input by the proponent.

I have neither time nor desire to follow up on the links which Alex gives, and I doubt whether many others do either. For every citation supporting a view there is one or more refuting it, thereby making this process rather futile.

I have been amidst this sort of thing for most of my working life and must admit that I am sceptically scathing about a very large proportion of scientific literature. I witnessed the trend starting in the early to mid 1970's when academia became the victim of its own dictum "Publish or Die"; this was never a move to increase or improve scientific output, but to indulge in self-publicity in order to keep one's head above the water. There is a saying that "there is no such thing as bad publicity", but my goodness there are an awful lot of bad "adverts" (publications). I would go as far as to say that 99% (maybe even more) of scientific papers are at best irrelevant and self-indulgent, and at worst just total "tosh". I have many times declined to do a peer review of a paper for a journal on the grounds that it was no more than "pot boiling" twaddle which had no merit whatsoever. And, I admit to being guilty of the same crime myself, such was the pressure to add to the "CV List". I actually found that acting as an examiner for Ph.D. theses was much more enlightening and refreshing, especially in the case of exceptional students, although my scepticism began to creep in toward the end of my career when I realised that I was more and more examining the work of the supervisor rather then the student!!

This is rather (very) off-topic other than I wanted to state that I do not accept being bombarded with citations and the views of third parties as an integral part of a cogent argument.

So, back on topic, I am against ringing in general (but prepared to tolerate it by professional scientists) because:

1. I believe that it causes undue and unnecessary stress to the birds.

2. In some cases (I have mentioned some in above posts and might just be unlucky in seeing more examples than most people) the practice can be cruel and violate animal rights.

3. The input (in terms of effort and time) by the ringers does not justify the returns in terms of scientific data.

4. There are far too many people now who are practicing ringing (and gaining licenses to do so) simply as a hobby or sport which is an end in itself without any thought or interest in the scientific value (or otherwise) of what they are doing.

Nothing I have read here (or anywhere else) has changed my views and I must agree with John regarding his altercations with the BTO that "they will defend their own". Exactly the same can be said of the bird-ringing organisation in Portugal.

Colin

Alex Lees

January 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM

Colin, again apologies for fragmenting your post....

I do not think that this is degenerating, even a little. It is a useful discussion and, as I said in a previous post, I would like to see it continue with more input from more people as long as "feathers are not ruffled" (or, at least, too much!).

agreed.

I have neither time nor desire to follow up on the links which Alex gives, and I doubt whether many others do either. For every citation supporting a view there is one or more refuting it, thereby making this process rather futile.

Colin, you are very, very wrong on this point. You do not back up your arguments with your own primary data, nor apparently can you be bothered to quote other people's work. Thus all you offer is your opinion, which is fair enough but does not actually mean very much. My point in providing citations was to show that there is ample evidence why continuing to put rings on birds is a necessary evil. You provide no defence for your view, which although shared by other people is not shared (IME) by the professional ornithological community. We face much tougher moral problems than this one – that was why I wanted to start a debate on collecting, a much more volatile subject.

I have been amidst this sort of thing for most of my working life and must admit that I am sceptically scathing about a very large proportion of scientific literature. I witnessed the trend starting in the early to mid 1970's when academia became the victim of its own dictum "Publish or Die"; this was never a move to increase or improve scientific output, but to indulge in self-publicity in order to keep one's head above the water. There is a saying that "there is no such thing as bad publicity", but my goodness there are an awful lot of bad "adverts" (publications). I would go as far as to say that 99% (maybe even more) of scientific papers are at best irrelevant and self-indulgent, and at worst just total "tosh". I have many times declined to do a peer review of a paper for a journal on the grounds that it was no more than "pot boiling" twaddle which had no merit whatsoever. And, I admit to being guilty of the same crime myself, such was the pressure to add to the "CV List". I actually found that acting as an examiner for Ph.D. theses was much more enlightening and refreshing, especially in the case of exceptional students, although my scepticism began to creep in toward the end of my career when I realised that I was more and more examining the work of the supervisor rather then the student!!

I'm sorry Colin, but knocking 99% of science is hyperbole the like of which makes me cringe. Sure there is a drive to publish, its what the reputations of individuals and institutions depends on. However, aside from the sh#ttest journals the output of the process either adds to or reinforces what we know - the process of observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. I'm sorry you have become jaded by the process, which might not bode well for the rest of us, or may be more a personal reflection on your views of the world. I do not sit at the sidelines in the current biodiversity crisis - although you may not mean to be offensive, one must also assume that your comment reflects my own work. Conservation biology is a crisis discipline, there is a time for examination of moral precepts but only once we have an alternative way of gleaning such data. If this debate is to go anyway constructive it must focus on non-invasive techniques without a subsequent data vacuum. Your views, although you are entitled to them are not constructive.

This is rather (very) off-topic other than I wanted to state that I do not accept being bombarded with citations and the views of third parties as an integral part of a cogent argument.

I have offered my personal experience, I have offered a digest of the literature to support my argument. From here it looks like you render my argument null and void simply because you cannot find a defence from the literature. Surely you can do better than this?

So, back on topic, I am against ringing in general (but prepared to tolerate it by professional scientists) because:

1. I believe that it causes undue and unnecessary stress to the birds.

Agreed, ringing causes stress to birds, as do many other 'natural' events (humans are part of nature). The point which I will keep returning to is that we are trading off this stress (and occasional mortality) for information that is extremely important for the understanding of avian biology and hence informing conservation planning decisions. This cannot be achieved with a small number of professional individuals alone.

2. In some cases (I have mentioned some in above posts and might just be unlucky in seeing more examples than most people) the practice can be cruel and violate animal rights.

Agreed, I believe there is a need for greater policing of schemes the world over.

3. The input (in terms of effort and time) by the ringers does not justify the returns in terms of scientific data.

You cannot justify this view.

4. There are far too many people now who are practicing ringing (and gaining licenses to do so) simply as a hobby or sport which is an end in itself without any thought or interest in the scientific value (or otherwise) of what they are doing.

As I have already stated, the vast majority of ringing data is collected by amateur ornithologists, many of whom also contribute peer-reviewed papers for the likes of Bird Study and Ringing and Migration.

We should all treat living creatures with respect, but you cannot protect efficiently what you don't understand.

Regards

Alex

Alex Lees

January 4th, 2009, 08:30 PM

Bird ringing and global climate change (http://www.euring.org/about_euring/brochure2007/euring_brochure_2007.pdf)

Birds as highly mobile and easily observable organisms are extremely responsive to climatic changes. They were among the first organisms that made it obvious to scientists and the public that climate is now changing at a remarkable rate. Earlier spring arrival of migrants, earlier onset of the breeding season, a northward shift of breeding areas and an increase in winter reports of migratory species gave clear evidence for a general rise in temperature over most of Europe.

In several countries bird ringing has been in constant use for over 100 years and data at national ringing schemes cover large geographic areas. The recovery database of birds from Britain and Ireland was used to calculate indices of migratory tendency which can be used for a variety of analyses, including detection of changes in migratory behaviour. Based on the same dataset of ring recoveries in Britain and Ireland, relationships were shown between mean wintering latitude and climate variables. In a comparable analysis on the German ring recoveries of 30 species evidence was found for significantly increased proportions of winter recoveries within a distance less than 100 km in nine species. Evidence for reduced mean recovery distances between breeding and wintering areas was found in five species and a tendency towards wintering at higher latitudes was found in 10 species. Although heterogeneity of ring recovery data in terms of ringing activity, recapture, re-sighting effort, recovery and reporting probabilities of recoveries on a temporal and spatial scale are problems for these types of long-term analyses the data from bird ringing offer promising possibilities.

First, ringing and recovery databases cover larger areas and longer time-spans than most single studies. Second, in contrast to pure observations and bird counts, individuals with deviant behaviour (like wintering in northern latitudes by migrants) can be assigned to distinct populations. Third, the datasets are readily available in standardised, electronic format. Thanks to the co-ordinating efforts of EURING, analyses of changes in migration behaviour of some species might cover many decades and large geographical areas. Furthermore the success of wintering attempts in northern latitudes, as well as fitness consequences of changed behaviour in response to any environmental change can only be measured properly when the bird is individually marked and can be recognized. Besides the current strong tendency to assign almost all observed changes in bird behaviour to climate change it must be kept in mind that also changes in land use, winter feeding, availability of rubbish dumps and many other environmental changes may affect the position of wintering areas and the timing of breeding behaviour. Standardized data from ringing projects and the insights into life histories of individuals, as shown by ring recoveries, will help to entangle this complex framework.

Colin Key

January 4th, 2009, 09:29 PM

As I have already stated, the vast majority of ringing data is collected by amateur ornithologists,

Regards

Alex

Alex,

There is no such thing as "an amateur ornithologist". Throughout my working life I have encountered (and, must say, have encouraged through my work with the WEA and FSC, which organisations I have supported through running evening and weekend workshops) fossil and mineral collectors who purported to be "geologists" - enthusiastic and knowledgeable many of them were, scientists they most definitely were not.

I am afraid that the rest of what you have to say is, in my opinion, unsustainable, and we may have to just leave it a that point.

This is a public forum, not a scientifically-based symposium, and as such I had hoped for more input on this topic from "Joe Public".

Colin

Alex Lees

January 5th, 2009, 04:50 PM

Alex,

There is no such thing as "an amateur ornithologist". Throughout my working life I have encountered (and, must say, have encouraged through my work with the WEA and FSC, which organisations I have supported through running evening and weekend workshops) fossil and mineral collectors who purported to be "geologists" - enthusiastic and knowledgeable many of them were, scientists they most definitely were not.

I am afraid that the rest of what you have to say is, in my opinion, unsustainable, and we may have to just leave it a that point.

This is a public forum, not a scientifically-based symposium, and as such I had hoped for more input on this topic from "Joe Public".

Colin

Hi Colin

I think we will have to leave it there because this is getting semi-circular, if you can find time to answer my questions though I'd be most interested, such a thought-exercise might generate some useful ideas.

However I will 'pull you up' on your dismissal of 'amateur ornithologists'. We can argue semantics till the cows come home but for me an 'amateur ornithologist' is anyone that collects data, regardless whether or not they analyse it. Amateur ornithologists are the backbone of British Ornithology, the birders that participate in surveys (organised principally by the BTO) who collect data for Atlas projects, WEBS, RAS, CES, CBC etc etc. Many of them also contribute papers to peer-reviewed bird journals. None of them get paid, but without them there would be no atlases, NGO and goverment reports or blockbuster papers in Nature and Science. Do not underestimate their value. On our little group of islands we have the best studied avifauna in the world, and only because of the veritable army of amateur ornithologists.....

cheers

Alex

sue-o

January 5th, 2009, 05:24 PM

I am not an ornithologist, or a zoologist, or a gist of any kind; just a nature lover. I always have been. I must come down firmly in favor of the birds on this issue. Other than offering them proper food and habitat because we have taken so much away, we should leave them alone. When I see photos of birds with ridiculous amounts of rings lining their legs I am appalled. I may not be formally trained, but I do know that life is hard for birds, indeed, for all creatures fighting for survival in what can be very harsh conditions. A bird’s life can depend on a split second; avoiding an attack or catching that prey when all reserves are on empty. Surely, those rings stacked up on a leg that has taken eons to evolve into what is often a nearly weightless appendage must encumber the bearer. (I know, don’t call me Shirley). Even one ring could cause a distraction long enough to cause death. I’m also sure that the trauma of being netted and man-handled must cause deaths. Now I have the knowledge that the poor things can be left for hours in bags! That sounds like parrot trafficers!
I also get upset when I see ‘specimens’. One wonders if some species would be extinct if there were less of them lining the drawers of museums and places of higher learning. How nice for us to be able to inspect them lying feet up in faded colors and disintegrating feathers.
Why can’t we just stop molesting this planet and all the other species on it? The birds do not belong to the inhabitants of the Ivory Tower. The birds do not belong to anyone and it is our duty as thinking beings to check our aggressive and destructive behavior. We must protect and preserve the beauty and diversity of this planet. I personally do not think that netting and banding is doing more good than harm in the protection and preserving department. Can't we start cultivating a more passive approach to the study of our natural world?
Sue Public

john c

January 5th, 2009, 05:38 PM

I am not an ornithologist, or a zoologist, or a gist of any kind; just a nature lover. I always have been. I must come down firmly in favor of the birds on this issue.

I promised myself not to get involved in this argument beyond my single earlier posting, but, even though I share many of Colin's misgivings, I cannot allow Sue's comment to pass. The only effective way to protect birds is to know about them and this often involves studies involving (amongst other things) ringing. By advocating such a "leave well alone" policy you are not helping birds, but contributing to (even encouraging) the threats they face. One simple example will have to suffice (the figures are my own but reflect the actual circumstances). Friends ringing at a local mudflat demonstrated that the flock of, say, 150 Dunlins we casual observers noted during the autumn was actually nothing of the sort. Everyday or so 50 moved on and another 50 joined them. The actual numbers of birds using this resource in the period wasn't "150" as might have been supposed, but many times that figure. When a developer wanted to concrete the area over the data attained by systematic ringing was a powerful ally for those against the scheme,

John

sue-o

January 5th, 2009, 06:41 PM

Sir,
I did say:
Can we not start cultivating a more passive approach to the study of our natural world?
I didn't intend to mean that no studies should be done. I guess I got a bit passionate.

I do not believe that trapping, man-handling, banding or other methods of molestation are the only means of keeping developers from cementing over areas that are important to bird survival. Unfortunately, some development will get through in places it shouldn't even with data out the gazoo. Human population growth demands it.

Alex Lees

January 5th, 2009, 08:47 PM

Ps. As a thought exercise, and hopefully without too many knee-jerk reactions, what is the opinion people have of actually killing birds deliberately for science? I'll not share my opinion yet, but this is for me an issue where questions of morality are much more pertinent - have a read of this (http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1995BCI.PDF), this (http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esc.350/Bekoff%20and%20Elzanowski1997i.pdf) and this (http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1997BCI.PDF).

Hi Sue, all

Unfortunately getting data on birds requires intervention. Whenever you go outside you will disturb birds. There are however big differences between say, accidentally flushing ducks whilst doing a WEBs count, temporarily at least 'molesting' birds by ringing them and deliberately killing a bird to preserve a specimen. As I have tried to outline, ringing a bird does incur a fitness cost on birds, however it also provides lots of data on them. If ringing birds was truly causing high mortality then the detailed long-running studies carried out on many species would not function. This is not the case. Moreover just look at some of the longevity records that ringing provides.

There are also many long-running colour-ringing studies; colour-ringing may incur a higher fitness cost because the colour rings may change the attractiveness of the birds to the opposite sex - making some birds more attractive and some less so. This is obviously not good for the birds with bad combinations and not good for the scientists trying to set up an unbiased experiment.

Its good that you brought up collecting, see my ps above. Its not something that British birders are very familiar, with as there is very little need to kill a bird for science in the UK, as our museums are full of suitable well-preserved material. It is much commoner in the states and standard practice in the tropics where in many places we still know so little about even basic identification and presence/absence information about birds. This is a very emotive issue that requires serious ethical judgement and IMO should only be used when no alternative is available - but is still another important neccesary evil. I invited people to read the 3 papers above (and linked below) - to judge some strong for and counter arguments for collecting birds. I visit museums fairly regularly, as do many birders and in the neotropics work with many people that still pull the trigger as it were. Anyone care to venture a balanced opinion?

Alex

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1995BCI.PDF

http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esc.350/Bekoff%20and%20Elzanowski1997i.pdf

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/1997BCI.PDF

Alex Lees

January 5th, 2009, 09:18 PM

We recently had Portugal's second Rustic Bunting trapped and ringed by a young, enthusiastic and very professional ornithologist (I am going to be very careful here not to mention names, localities or organisations since I do not want this discussion to get 'personal' - if you know who I am referring to, please keep it to yourself). On another forum someone enquired about the first record of this species so I looked it up and found that it was ringed on 12th November 1990 at 22.00 hrs.

I found this odd since although I know the locality very well, and it is a beautiful place, you would not want to be there at 10.00 pm on a November night. A few other people picked this up on that forum and then someone from the ringing station gave an explanation: at the time, the procedure was to set the nets from 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm at this location which is a few kilometres from the ringing station. At 6.00 pm the nets are taken down and the "bagged" birds are all taken back to the ringing station. The ringers then sat down to a nice dinner, after which the "bagged" birds were "processed", therefore accounting for the time that the ring was put on the bird as 22.00 hrs.

I do not know at what time this bird was actually trapped, but if it was at the start of the session (3.00 pm) then that bird could have been kept in its little cotton bag for a total of seven hours.

Can any of you ornithologists or ringers out there justify this?

To me, an absolute disgrace.

Colin :realmad:

Hi Colin

I meant to reply to this earlier but forgot. Obviously I don't know the circumstances but this is what I would imagine happened. A roost catch would mean any birds removed from the nets after dark would be processed and then overnighted in a bag. Birds do not struggle in bags in the dark and cease movement (presumably falling asleep - most birds have instinctive roosting behaviours). At a guess either the ringers waited to process the birds till later and then re-bagged them, or more likely the bird was only discovered to be a Rustic Bunting on inspection later - and help may have been summoned to confirm the identification. This was nearly 20 years ago and no-one would have been familiar with the species. This would not have made any difference to the bird which would still have to spend the night in a bird bag. Is this bad for the bird? Capture of birds will presumably be interpreted as a predatory attempt triggering an adrenocortical stress response causing a rise in metabolic rate and increased muscular thermogenesis, but being a dark place where it can't see a predator should be much less detrimental. Moreover as the birds are kept indoors then they should burn less fat and obviously can't be eaten by any small mammals that might otherwise have a go. If overnighting caused lots of deaths by morning it would be abandoned, it doesn't.

Sue - the situation is not analagous to parrots being shoved into tubes and put on planes for the benefit of somebody making illegal money and some aviculturist getting their prize. I have strong views about birds in anything other than very temporary captivity that serves a scientific end.

Alex

Colin Key

January 5th, 2009, 09:59 PM

I have searched high and low for some photos of colour-ringed Spoonbills, but they seem to have disappeared into the ether. For anyone interested there are some mediocre shots of some of the very same birds on the “Ringing & Banding” section of BF.

My reasons for writing this post are to elicit comment and opinion rather than to “flame” ringers. I presume that colour-ringing of large species (Flamingo, Spoonbill, Osprey, etc) is normally done at the nest as opposed to trapping, and I have no real problem with that. But why on earth do these rings have to be so numerous and so “gaudy”? We have a large number of Greater Flamingos in the Algarve now, I see them every day, and quite a few are ringed with a metal ring on one leg and a white or grey plastic ring (with a visible num ber) on the other leg; they are unobtrusive and a casual observer might not even notice them but the numbers on the plastic rings are readable with a ‘scope and show that these birds (all juveniles and sub-adults) are from the Camargue or Donãna.

A few weeks ago, on a beautiful sunny morning I was at Sítio Maria Pires (a man-made dam adjacent to Abicada, Ria de Alvor) at dawn and witnessed a most beautiful sight of 400+ White Storks, large numbers of herons and egrets, and 68 Spoonbill, the latter being the largest flock I have seen outside the Ria Formosa. Spoonbill are one of my favourite birds and every time I see them (almost every day) I recall my excitement at seeing my first (three birds together) at RSPB Dungeness many years ago. What spoiled this sight for me on that recent morning was that about 20 of the Spoonbill were colour-ringed with the most appalling array of brightly coloured cylinders of plastic imaginable, and in many cases the plastic ring also had a protruding “flag” (I believe that most if not all of these birds had been ringed in Holland). This totally destroyed the idyllic scene for me. I have always noticed that in a mixed flock of water birds the Spoonbill tend to stick together in a close group, whereas herons, egrets etc. do not. What struck me here was that the ringed birds were completely segregated from the non-ringed birds. I am no avian psychologist (who is?), but why should this be, other than that the ringed birds were “different” from the non-ringed?

This took my thoughts back to 11th November 2005 when we had a flock of 17 Avocet at Ria de Alvor. Avocet are very aggressive birds (more so during the breeding season) but one of the flock was very obviously alienated from the rest and the only reason I could see for this was this was that it carried a number of very obvious colour rings. I watched the behaviour of this bird and its cohorts for two or three days until one day I saw it being attacked by a Black-tailed Godwit and a Black-winged Stilt; unfortunately I only managed a few very poor and distant digiscoped shots of the incident (one of which is attached) before the camera battery packed up, but the incident was witnessed by two other birders. The godwit and the stilt actually killed the Avocet in a frenzied attack the like of which I have never seen before. Was this because of the “body jewelry” ? - we will never know, but I could not see any other reason. I could not get to the bird at the time and went I went back later that day the corpse had gone, probably taken by a fox.

http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/?action=view&current=Avocet001Medium.jpg
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/Avocet001Medium.jpg

I am now wondering whether birds (like humans) do tend to dissociate themselves from other individuals of the same species due to “physical differences”. I have also been closely watching a sub-adult Greater Flamingo (“Limpy”) at Ria de Alvor over the past few weeks. He (or she) had fishing line around its ankle which resulted in necrosis of the foot. After a period of the foot literally hanging by a sinew it eventually fell off. The bird is still feeding and is capable of flight, but finds the “running take-off” rather difficult. Unfortunately “Limpy” has been ostracised by the rest of the flock and is usually several hundred metres from the main feeding group - is this because he is physically different?

I have just come across a photo in Dave Palmer’s gallery of a Sanderling with what I consider to be an undue amount of “ornament” (I hope Dave does not mind me adding this shot, but it is in a publicly viewable gallery) - is this really necessary?

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o100/Passarinhos/SANDERLING3.jpg

I have other examples, but without photographic evidence, like the colour-dyed Ringed Plover at Shellness many years ago (I thought I had found a “mega”!!) which was the colour of saffron and clearly alienated from its bretheren solely due to its appearance.
Do we really have the right to do this to wild birds?

Colin

Colin Key

January 5th, 2009, 10:17 PM

... A roost catch would mean any birds removed from the nets after dark would be processed and then overnighted in a bag. Birds do not struggle in bags in the dark and cease movement (presumably falling asleep - most birds have instinctive roosting behaviours). At a guess either the ringers waited to process the birds till later and then re-bagged them, or more likely the bird was only discovered to be a Rustic Bunting on inspection later - and help may have been summoned to confirm the identification. This was nearly 20 years ago and no-one would have been familiar with the species. This would not have made any difference to the bird which would still have to spend the night in a bird bag. Is this bad for the bird? Capture of birds will presumably be interpreted as a predatory attempt triggering an adrenocortical stress response causing a rise in metabolic rate and increased muscular thermogenesis, but being a dark place where it can't see a predator should be much less detrimental. Moreover as the birds are kept indoors then they should burn less fat and obviously can't be eaten by any small mammals that might otherwise have a go. If overnighting caused lots of deaths by morning it would be abandoned, it doesn't.

Alex

Alex,

I really, honestly, cannot believe this response from you. You are trying to defend a barbaric and inhumane practice in the name of scientific research. The "collectors" of birds in the 19th century probably caused much less stress on the birds. At least they just shot them and rapidly put them out of the misery which you seem to condone.

What right do you have to make these decisions on how wild animals are treated? The answer is "none".

Colin :realmad:

Alex Lees

January 5th, 2009, 11:26 PM

Hi Colin

I would imagine your Spoonbills clustered together because they were kin - they migrate in family parties and all the chicks (and adults?) from one nest would be ringed together so they stick together on those grounds. One to ask the Dutch about to confirm. I don't know about your other examples - it is possible that birds might behave aggressively towards colour-ringed individuals, although why heterospecifics would do this I don't know. I agree that there are many potential problems with colour-ringing - but dropping the methodology will end most of the behavioral ecology research projects in birds..... I think it is certainly one for ethics committees on a case-by-case basis.

As to your other post, I fail to see barbarity, on current evidence (and I'm quite prepared to change my mind) roosting a bird overnight only causes minor inconvenience (although it might delay the onset of migration in autumn, which would be negative). I don't condone the 19th century collectors, they contributed individually and collectively more to ornithology than most of us could ever dream to. Anyone interested in their exploits should read Mearns and Mearns The Bird Collectors (http://www.nhbs.com/the_bird_collectors_tefno_64066.html), which resides on my bookshelf.

Alex

john robinson

January 6th, 2009, 08:18 PM

Alex
You say my views are "hard line" Perhaps they are.
Can you answer a couple of simple questions fairly briefly..
Why is it that very often bird photographers are accused of hounding birds' which is bad for them for a whole variety of reasons.

--and yet bird ringers can hand birds around to be photographed even when the species are things like kingfishers, blue tits swallows etc, (which need no aids to ID )and its OK. This is not a quote from others but from my own fairly long term experience (often in the company of ringing groups )

And a final question. Why is it that the BTO very rarely publish pics of birds in their journals etc with rings on ??
Think about it !
John Robinson

Collalba

January 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM

Alex, you really must stop using fact and figures to back-up your arguments in support of the ringing of our feathered friends. You should know perfectly well that a very good imagination, opinionated views and frumpy posts make for a much more balanced view on the subject.:laugh:

john robinson

January 7th, 2009, 08:11 PM

Collalba
Amusing post but with all due respect I don't think sarcasm helps any one and it certainly doesn't answer my simple questions to Alex.
I worked in Conservation for the government most of my working life. and I think that in some small way justifies my opinionated views and imagination , assuming that I am one of those you intimate.
John Robinson

Collalba

January 7th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Sorry John, but what about poor old Alex and all his facts and figures to support his views? All ignored or dismissed without any corresponding facts or figures supporting exactly why ringing is 'bad'. Don't you feel at all sorry for him and his constant effort to be reasonable and factual?

Your questions could so easily be turned around i.e. Why is it that very often bird ringers can hand birds around to be photographed and are accused of causing stress to the birds

--and yet . This is not a quote from others but from my own fairly long term experience (often in the company of photographers ) bird photographers can hound birds' which is bad for them for a whole variety of reasons and its OK

Quote "And a final question. Why is it that the BTO very rarely publish pics of birds in their journals etc with rings on ?? Think about it !"

Ummmmm! There are more birds in the wild without rings than with them?

john robinson

January 8th, 2009, 10:03 AM

Yes- but the fact is that the BTO have a strict set of guidelines about the handling of birds during and after ringing . If someone is issued a licence to ring birds then he/she should abide by the terms of that licence. If I use a schedule 1 licence to "disturb " a bird by photographing it then I stick to the rules. If I don't ,then there are many who will make sure I don't get another.
I do have to agree that there are photographers who act like maniacs in order to get another one for the s.... book.
Your answer regarding pics of birds in the BTO publications is a little feeble I think.
Its feel it's more likely because the BTO don't want to court controversy.
JohnR

Colin Key

January 8th, 2009, 02:01 PM

Sorry John, but what about poor old Alex and all his facts and figures to support his views? All ignored or dismissed without any corresponding facts or figures supporting exactly why ringing is 'bad'.

When it comes to bird trapping, ringing, retrieval and "control" I think that "facts and figures" are rather thin on the ground.

As to "corresponding facts or figures supporting exactly why ringing is 'bad'", my own facts are just that - personal observations and experiences, no lies, no exaggeration, just the plain honest truth.

Colin

Collalba

January 8th, 2009, 02:01 PM

Yes- but the fact is that the BTO have a strict set of guidelines about the handling of birds during and after ringing . If someone is issued a licence to ring birds then he/she should abide by the terms of that licence.

I suppose the operative word here is licensed, unlike all other activities i.e. photography, twitching, birding/birdwatching. So by enlarge* those qualified and trained sufficiently to receive a ringing licence will abide by the terms and ‘guidelines’ related therein.

If I use a schedule 1 licence to "disturb " a bird by photographing it then I stick to the rules. If I don't ,then there are many who will make sure I don't get another.

You can apply exactly the same criteria to ringers who are issued with a schedule 1 licence.

I do have to agree that there are photographers who act like maniacs in order to get another one for the s.... book.

I am sure you would agree that there are good and bad elements in all fields/aspects of the birding world (as in all walks of life) and we can only hope that *by enlarge the vast majority abide by rules and guidelines available to all.

Your answer regarding pics of birds in the BTO publications is a little feeble I think.
Its feel it's more likely because the BTO don't want to court controversy.

I am sorry John, but your answer to my ‘feeble’ response is just plain daft. Take a look at any bird or birding magazine/publication and you tell me the percentage of photographs showing birds fitted with a ring against those without. Why do the RSPB magazines rarely show photographs of birds with rings? The simple answer of course is the availability of quality photographs and I as I said there are far more quality photographs of un-ringed birds to those showing a bird with a ring. To accuse the BTO of acting differently to other organisations or publishers when choosing photographs is extreme and factually incorrect.

Colin Key

January 8th, 2009, 02:11 PM

.....So by enlarge* ...... *by enlarge ....

You presumably mean "By and large"?

Have to be precise you know! :smile:

Colin

Collalba

January 8th, 2009, 02:19 PM

You presumably mean "By and large"?

Have to be precise you know! :smile:

Colin

Quite and a sloppy piece of writing if ever I saw one! Thanks for the correction Colin.:smile:

Collalba

January 8th, 2009, 02:22 PM

I am sure some readers of this thread might be interested in what is actually required to become a ringer and learn a little of the reasons for ringing. I abstract below from the BTO and CMA an abridged introduction.

Why do we ring birds?

Much has been discovered about birds by watching and counting them, but such methods rarely allow birds to be identified as individuals. This is essential if we are to learn about how long they live and when and where they move, questions that are vital for bird conservation. Placing a lightweight, uniquely numbered, metal ring around a bird’s leg provides a reliable and harmless method of identifying birds as individuals. Each ring also has an address so that anyone finding a ringed bird can help by reporting where and when it was found and what happened to it. Some ringing projects also use colour rings to allow individual birds to be identified without being caught.

Although we have been ringing birds (Britain and Ireland) for nearly 100 years, we are still discovering new facts about migration routes and wintering areas. However, the main focus of the Ringing Schemes today is monitoring bird populations. Ringing allows us to study how many young birds leave the nest and survive to become adults, as well as how many adults survive the stresses of breeding, migration and severe weather. Changes in survival rates and other aspects of birds’ biology help us to understand the causes of population declines. Such information is so important for conservation. The BTO, for example, runs two special projects to collect it. The Constant Effort Sites (CES) scheme provides information on population size, breeding success and survival of bird species living in scrub and wetland habitats. Ringers work at over 130 CES scheme sites each year. The Retrapping Adults for Survival (RAS) project gathers survival data for a wide range of species, particularly those of current conservation concern.

A notable example of the importance of ringing was to show that declines in the number of Sedge Warblers breeding in Britain and Ireland was linked to lower levels of rainfall in their African wintering quarters. The BTO have also found that the recent dramatic decline in the numbers of Song Thrushes has been caused by a reduction in the survival rate of young birds. This information will help us to identify the environmental factors responsible for the decline.

Does ringing affect the birds?

The simple answer is no. Ringing is carried out by skilled ringers with the utmost consideration for the birds’ welfare. It is not surprising that ringing has little effect on birds because relative to the bird’s weight, wearing a ring is similar to a person carrying a mobile phone. It is essential that birds are not affected unduly by the fitting and wearing of a ring; if they were, ringing would not tell us how normal birds behave. Many studies have shown that birds ringed during the breeding season quickly return to incubating eggs, or feeding chicks, once they are released, and long distance migrants continue to travel thousands of miles between breeding and wintering grounds.

How are birds caught for ringing?

Birds are caught for ringing in a variety of ways. About twenty percent are ringed as chicks in the nest; this is valuable because their precise age and origin are then known. The method most frequently used to catch fully-grown birds is the mist net. This is a fine net erected between poles, and is designed to catch birds in flight. This method is very effective but birds can only be removed safely from mist nets by experienced ringers who have received special training.

Learning to ring

The skills necessary to become a ringer can only be learnt by practice under the close supervision of experienced ringers; effectively an apprenticeship. Essential skills include the safe and efficient catching and handling of birds, identification, ageing, measuring and record keeping. For this reason, ringers undertake a period of training, generally of two or more years, during which they are only allowed to ring birds under supervision. Their progress is assessed by an independent ringer, whose own ability has been judged to be of a high standard. In Spain the ‘trainee’ has also to pass a written exam before acquiring the status of ‘Experto’ and progressing to being able to ring birds unsupervised. In this way the Ringing Scheme maintains very high standards of bird welfare and scientific data. A Spanish ringing permit is also a legal requirement for anyone ringing birds. It has to be renewed annually.

forktail

January 8th, 2009, 03:42 PM

What training is needed before I buy a DSLR and big lens?

And what is the organisation that would govern or regulate my conduct?

Will my camera be confiscated, and will I be prohibited from further transgressions if I am reported?

And what benefits accrue to science from my lovely close ups of scarce birds?

I've seen many more untrained, unqualified photographers without a clue, annoying birds and birders and the general public in the last year, than I've seen irresponsible ringers in all the years I've been birding. In fact, maybe I've been lucky but I've never seen anything that I would remotely consider unethical or unprofessional yet I have seen ringers under pressure to keep birds for the masses and knowing all the ire that would be raised from disappointed listers, the ringers still did the right thing.

just some thoughts.

MichaelF

January 8th, 2009, 05:02 PM

A notable example of the importance of ringing was to show that declines in the number of Sedge Warblers breeding in Britain and Ireland was linked to lower levels of rainfall in their African wintering quarters
But not how to solve the problem??

Colin Key

January 8th, 2009, 08:40 PM

Quite and a sloppy piece of writing if ever I saw one! Thanks for the correction Colin.:smile:

And another piece, if I might say so!

Too tired to reply to your last post tonight, but one or two points I might pick up on tomorrow.

Let us keep it "civil", it is a useful discussion (which will have no satisfactory end!!!).

Colin :smile:

john robinson

January 8th, 2009, 11:23 PM

I am sorry John, but your answer to my ‘feeble’ response is just plain daft. Take a look at any bird or birding magazine/publication and you tell me the percentage of photographs showing birds fitted with a ring against those without. Why do the RSPB magazines rarely show photographs of birds with rings? The simple answer of course is the availability of quality photographs and I as I said there are far more quality photographs of un-ringed birds to those showing a bird with a ring. To accuse the BTO of acting differently to other organisations or publishers when choosing photographs is extreme and factually incorrect.

Sorry but this is rubbish.
Its a waste of time trying to explain one's concerns to those with a vested interest.
Don't rock the boat that saves you.
JR
PS And still no real answers to my simple questions- as if any were expected.

Simon Wates

January 9th, 2009, 03:00 AM

But not how to solve the problem??

Although extremely relevant if you want to plan habitat management for Sedge Warblers!

Simon

john c

January 9th, 2009, 01:26 PM

I think the relatively small number of birds carrying rings (hence the paucity of returns and one argument against ringing) is quite sufficient to explain the dearth of photos of such birds in BTO publications. Factor in the reluctance of photographers, on purely aesthetic grounds, to use photos of birds carrying rings (esp those of a gaudy character) and I think you have more than sufficient explanation for this apparent omission.

Incidentally, it pretty much looks as though more predicted dichotomy of Saints or Sinners has proven fairly accurate in this debate,

John

Collalba

January 9th, 2009, 03:19 PM

Nearly all the posts on this thread are an expression of personal opinion, either influenced by experience or other people’s opinion/s. Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, but the benefits that ringing has brought to our understanding of birds and its value to conservation is absolute and undeniable. It is either an ill read or misinformed person who would venture otherwise. Those that make attempts to belittle the value of ringing or simply refuse to believe ‘actual’ fact are deluding themselves.

For those people who are anti-ringing, I suspect that this isn't about facts and figures, its about personal values. As mentioned in an earlier post of mine, if the tables were turned and someone presented me with believable data in support of, for instance, hunting deer with dogs, then there would be no amount of evidence that could convince me to drop my opposition.

I repeat myself here to all those who would disagree with ringing on grounds of personal values, by all means do, but please don't try and use lack of conservational value as a means to justify your personal view.

Tired of having my posts or answers described as ‘feeble’, rubbish etc I leave this thread to continue the pursuit of its own tail. Good luck to those who remain.

Simon Wates

January 9th, 2009, 03:43 PM

Colin Key

January 10th, 2009, 12:28 PM

Nicely said, Collalba - I agree!

I have had, a number of times, the opportunity to become a ringer but I have declined these kind offers. This is because, although I support ringing, I would not trust myself to make an ongoing serious commitment. I believe that ringers should really only practice within programs with clear objectives. What I do not agree with is erratic ringing carried out as a hobby - although significant data is collected like this, its value is considerably less than data accumulated within projects at constant effort sites and others.

I'm sure that everybody agrees though, that ringing or marking birds (ie; trapping) is not an ideal scenario and we should all be looking for other methods which are more passive to the birds. I believe there is much to be done on this and it would be nice to see a rise in projects that don't include handling birds and fitting them with whatever.

It would be great to think that ultimately, ringing and marking birds will eventually become less necessary and even be completely superseded by new practices that are non-invasive.

In the meantime I hope that conscientious ringing will continue to improve our knowledge.

Simon

Well put Simon; I think our views are coinciding :eek:. I never said (if previous posts are read again) that ringing should be banned, although it is not something which I agree with at a personal level. What I did say was that I accepted that ringing programs with a defined purpose by scientists would go on and I have no real problem with that - I referred in an early post to a television programme I watched many years ago about two Dutch guys who were ringing Red Knot, how professionally and delicately it was conducted, and what a super story unfolded from their well-planned and well-executed research.

What I am against are those amateurs who manage to obtain a license and pursue this as a hobby/pass-time/sport, call it what you will, in which the trapping and fondling of birds is their ultimate objective with little or no concern for the scientific merit of what they are doing; there are a lot of this fraternity, whatever anyone says to the contrary.

What I am totally opposed to are those (and this includes some scientists who ought to know better) who are trophy hunters and ring, or attempt to ring, scarce or rare birds which can not produce any scientific data return whatsoever; I have cited examples in previous posts.

And finally, those who I would actually prosecute, or at least revoke their licenses, are the people who are purely and simply guilty of bad practice which results in unnecessary stress and suffering, and sometimes death, of birds.

Colin

Alex Lees

January 10th, 2009, 01:35 PM

Hi John, Colin et al.

apologies for the tardy reply, I've been in the field, as it were.

and yet bird ringers can hand birds around to be photographed even when the species are things like kingfishers, blue tits swallows etc, (which need no aids to ID )and its OK. This is not a quote from others but from my own fairly long term experience (often in the company of ringing groups )

As a general rule birds aren't trapped for the purpose of identifying them, although this does happen with vagrants sometimes. I believe we should ring as many vagrants as possible anyway to understand what is going on with e.g. siberian (pseudo)vagrants. Taking a picture(s) shouldn't take much time and images provide extra information that may be useful in future to assess (sub)identification criteria, moult-limits etc. They may also have some aesthetic/sentimental value to the ringer concerned, I don't have a problem with this so long as its achieved quickly and efficiently, ie. within a couple of minutes tops.

And a final question. Why is it that the BTO very rarely publish pics of birds in their journals etc with rings on ??
Think about it !
John Robinson

I think they publish quite a few photos of birds with rings on. The images you see are not a random subsample anyway, they are typically contributed free-of-charge by a small number of photographers. If they aren't taking pictures of birds near a ringing site then they are statistically unlikely to photograph a small bird with a ring on. I can see no reason why the BTO would seek to avoid publishing photos of ringed birds anyway, quite the opposite in fact.

When it comes to bird trapping, ringing, retrieval and "control" I think that "facts and figures" are rather thin on the ground.

Apart from the thousands of papers, articles and books, some of which I've tried, unsuccessfully, to share with you.

As to "corresponding facts or figures supporting exactly why ringing is 'bad'", my own facts are just that - personal observations and experiences, no lies, no exaggeration, just the plain honest truth.

Colin

It is good that you are able to share these with us Colin, no-one is or should be defending the actions of those that committed such offences. Don't however tar everyone with the same brush. As I pointed out earlier, I'm only nominally a ringer, most of the ringing I do is abroad or in an occasional pulse at a bird observatory or similar. I spent the autumn on North Ronaldsay, their ethics were maybe even stronger than mine, birds were never kept for more than 10 minutes, and this included vagrants like Two-barred Crossbill, the latter was only seen in the hand by one obs staff member as the rest of the crew were unable to arrive within that 10 minute window.

Alex

john robinson

January 11th, 2009, 09:48 PM

Alex
Sorry I don't wish to prolong this , as it will never come to a solution or agreement anyway. All I will say is that what you argue above does not always happen in real life. I think you realise that.I have a great number of pictures showing very good examples of the many facets of what I believe to be bad practice.according to BTO rules..
(I do in fact provide pictures for the BTO )
JR

Howard King

October 6th, 2009, 11:40 AM

For 98% of the birds that pass here we simple do not have a clue of their origins the return on one ring from here (and yes we have a ringing program http://www.hawar-islands.com/blog/gen_stub.php) certainly will be of real value. Those that oppose ringing pray tell me how we might get at the information, so many of you already take for granted, by any other means.

GrahamMc

October 27th, 2009, 07:01 PM

I totally agree with Derek, ringing is so interesting,so much info is gained through ringing, the fascination gripped me years ago and i went out with an esteemed ringer on a couple of occasions, sadly i had to work away(to feather the nest :-) ) i would love to start again but fear at 53 im getting to old.

Colin Key

October 27th, 2009, 10:18 PM

I totally agree with Derek ,so much info is gained through ringing, the fascination gripped me years ago and i went out with an esteemed ringer on a couple of occasions, sadly i had to work away(to feather the nest :-) ) i would love to start again but fear at 53 im getting to old.

Graham,

You re-open this thread at your peril!!

1. "so much info is gained through ringing" - what is your evidence for this statement?

2. " the fascination gripped me years ago and i went out with an esteemed ringer on a couple of occasions" - this is my major objection to ringing, amateurs ringing purely for the pleasure of doing so (the addictive practice of "bird fondling") rather than with any scientific goal in mind.

Colin :no:

MichaelF

October 27th, 2009, 11:36 PM

How about this for some amazing info gained from ringing:
http://www.rug.nl/Corporate/nieuws/archief/archief2009/persberichten/157_09

Or that two Red-flanked Bluetails were ringed at Spurn Bird Obs on 17 and 18 October this year - as far as I can tell from birdguides, no-one ever saw two at the same time. Would anyone have known there were two but for the ringing?

Colin Key

October 28th, 2009, 03:17 PM

Yes, we have had "three" Yellow-browed Warblers here in the past week - unfortunately the second and third had the same ring that was put on the first!! :laugh::laugh:

A "much fondled" bird.

Colin :biggrin:

mafting

October 28th, 2009, 07:05 PM

Here you go, Colin. Knock yourself out: http://www.bto.org/ringing/ringinfo/objectives.htm

If it wasn't for ringing you'd still be thinking that Swallows slept at the bottom of ponds in winter.

ALL ringers are 'amateurs' in the sense that nobody is a professional ringer - no job exists that provides a wage just for ringing birds. So while you may go out and count birds and send the data to the BTO, ringers go out and measure birds (or aspects of them) and then send that data to the BTO. You do your bit for pleasure I'm sure. So do you expect ringers to do it if they hate it? You are unable to interpret and assess the BTO Atlas data you gather on your own I'm sure. So do you expect ringers to be able to interpret and asses themselves all the ringing data that they gather? They are effectively working for free for the BTO, providing baseline scientific data that is then used by scientists at the BTO and elsewhere. That data is much more reliable and valuable than the sort of data that you may supply (counts), if you do, as it is systematic and biometric. So unless you are able to somehow assess the condition, age and sex of every bird you see, and the movements and origins of some of them as individuals, using systematic and repeatable sampling methods based on several years of training, then you may wish to consider yourself the 'amateur' and question the value of your own activities when you disturb birds by entering their habitat just for the pleasure of seeing them.

Like immunisation schemes in people, the ringing scheme is of primary benefit to the population as a whole and not necessarily the individual directly.

Colin Key

October 28th, 2009, 08:22 PM

If it wasn't for ringing you'd still be thinking that Swallows slept at the bottom of ponds in winter.

Odd you should choose that example mafting - I am a great admirer of The Rev Gilbert White and "The Natural History of Selbourne" is one of my favourite books (and, in global terms, the second most popular book in the world after The Bible, which is actually my least favourite book). As I am sure you know, Gilbert White's mission in life was to discover where Swallows hibernated during the winter.

So, how many Barn Swallows have been ringed and how closer are we to knowing where they winter? I have seen hundreds this afternoon, many of these will spend the winter here, and I have well-documented records of breeding in December and fledglings in January in Algarve - all done by observation and photography and never physically touched a bird or impinged on its privacy.

I think that everyone here knows my views on ringing; I have stated them often and will continue to do so when appropriate. Ringing for scientific research I can tolerate, ringing for self-gratification by amateur "Robin strokers" I cannot. It just so happens that I have spent a lot of time in the past week or so in the company of some people who came to Algarve with the intention of trapping and ringing, so I am rather "primed" in my views.

You must, of course, take my "repostes" in the spirit in which they are made - argumentative but not venomous.

Colin :smile:

mafting

October 28th, 2009, 11:40 PM

Ringing for scientific research I can tolerate, ringing for self-gratification by amateur "Robin strokers" I cannot.

You have just ended your own argument - ALL ringing is for scientific purposes. The ringer is merely the 'lab technician', not the professor. One can only ring under the auspices of a scientific ringing scheme - otherwise they do not get a permit.

It seems to be the issue that some people enjoy doing what they donate their free time and money for that you disapprove of. Regardless of their personal motives, they can only operate within the limits of what their permit allows, and that is designated for scientific pruposes. What's wrong with getting personal gratification out of something that has such obvious benefits (you are being deliberately obtuse if you insist on questioning this).

You might think it's a bit of a knockabout light-hearted discussion, but your views are damaging. It is taking a lot of effort to counter them in wider society, mainly due to people being ignorant of the basic facts. You might not agree with it, but if your views become commonplace and impossible to ignore, then important valuable research will be prevented due to 'public acceptance', or become more costly due to intense regulation and administration - it already requires a separate Home Office licence to pluck a feather from a bird for DNA/isotope testing. If ringing is made less accessible to 'amateurs' then huge amounts of information wont be gathered. The Migration Atlas would be impossible.

Didn't Gilbert White tie red string to the legs of swallows to mark them? Ringing remains one of the most powerful tools that we have in studying wild birds.

Marcia S

January 6th, 2010, 04:19 PM

Ive just joined the forum so thought I would have a word on this thread.

From my experience - I saw a couple of ringing demonstrations a few years ago (one at Landguard Point and one at the BTO) and I found the ringers involved to be very professional and 'quick'. The birds were not left for long in their bags and they were released immediately after ringing, measuring etc.

I work for a birding charity and think that ringing is done for a purpose. I hope to train as a ringer and have been on a couple of sessions where I have been able to hold the bird and release it. I havent yet progressed to the actual 'ringing' but hope to do so within the next few months.

As for ringers being pillocks Colin. I dont think so. I agree with a lot of things you say and some of the things you saw were totally unacceptable but please dont tar all ringers with the same brush.

There Ive had my say.:ohdear:

Colin Key

January 6th, 2010, 07:09 PM

As for ringers being pillocks Colin. I dont think so. I agree with a lot of things you say and some of the things you saw were totally unacceptable but please dont tar all ringers with the same brush.

There Ive had my say.:ohdear:

Hello Marcia,

And welcome to Surfbirds Forum.

If you read all of my posts you will realise that I do not "tar all ringers with the same brush". I do not agree with ANY ringing but accept that it will continue - I have grave doubts about the data return for the effort put in by ringers, and the discomfort (mild term!) endured by the birds.

I am a birder not an ornithologist, and have no desire to reap the benefits which the proponents of ringing praise.

What I do vehemently object to is the bad practice I have witnessed amongst licensed ringers, and also the increasing popularity of "hobbyist ringers" who I view as no more than "bird molesters".

I have recently discovered this on the web: http://www.birdringing.blogspot.com/

Dig back to early posts and watch the "hand-catching" of waterbirds coming for bread - totally disgusting; these people are twunts.

Colin :realmad:

mafting

January 9th, 2010, 01:01 AM

I have recently discovered this on the web: http://www.birdringing.blogspot.com/

Dig back to early posts and watch the "hand-catching" of waterbirds coming for bread - totally disgusting; these people are twunts.

Colin :realmad:

What about swan uppers? Any objections?
What about tagging mammals? Object to that too? Catching and tagging bees? Or is it just ringing?

You'd love canon netting!

Colin Key

January 9th, 2010, 06:33 PM

What about swan uppers? Any objections?
What about tagging mammals? Object to that too? Catching and tagging bees? Or is it just ringing?

You'd love canon netting!

Hello mafting,

I put "Swan Upping" in the same category as Morris Dancing, and my thoughts on the latter are unrepeatable. Don't know anything about tagging mammals; I will look into it and get back to you, if it causes distress then yes I would object to it. I didn't know that bees were tagged, but not too concerned about that. I have never actually witnessed "canon netting" but have seen videos of it. I have a funny story about this, without mentioning names or places; several years ago (not sure how many) an eminent ringer was given the required permission (apparently for the first time) to canon net at a well-known wetland in Portugal. All the equipment was in place but was supposed not to be used unless the ringer I am referring to was present. He was held up for some reason (I believe it was to be done at dawn) so, without his permission, the "underlings" who were on-site decided to go ahead. The canons were fired but someone was standing on the edge of the net resulting in one or more of the rockets doing a U-turn and ending up in a reed-bed behind them. It took several fire engines to extinguish the fire :laugh:.

But more seriously, did you find that video sequence of the oik luring waterfowl (I can't remember whether they were Coot, Moorhen or ducks, or all three, but they looked fairly tame anyway) with bread and then grabbing them by the neck when they got close enough? Is that condoned by the licensed ringers "code of conduct"? If it is then bird ringing has just taken a further step down in my view on life.

Colin

mafting

January 9th, 2010, 09:22 PM

I put "Swan Upping" in the same category as Morris Dancing, and my thoughts on the latter are unrepeatable.

Each to their own, although do you have similar strong opinions on any of the cultural traditions you see in Portugal? Or is it just British culture you don't like?

Don't know anything about tagging mammals; I will look into it and get back to you, if it causes distress then yes I would object to it. .

You aint gonna like it. Mammals have much less protection. I do some hands-on mammal work, and was very surprised at what you can do without licences, compared to ringing. Still, the risks are higher - even small mammals can fight very hard, and it's more dangerous for the operator (injury and disease).

I didn't know that bees were tagged, but not too concerned about that. .

They're marked with radiotags. Why aren't you concerned about bees? They have to be caught, handled and distressed too. Why the distinction?

I have a funny story about this, without mentioning names or places; .

Canon netting is a rich font of amusing stories. Explosives and keen amateurs are always a comedy mix. Black comedy sometimes.

But more seriously, did you find that video sequence of the oik luring waterfowl (I can't remember whether they were Coot, Moorhen or ducks, or all three, but they looked fairly tame anyway) with bread and then grabbing them by the neck when they got close enough? Is that condoned by the licensed ringers "code of conduct"? .

It is linked to from the BTO's own ringing blog. Indeed, it was one of the BTO's featured items (that same clip), so they're obviously fine with it, and so am I. It's exactly the same method used to catch waterfowl and gulls by the RSPCA etc. I use it to catch feral pigeons in parks when they have twine round their legs. Birds that are that habituated to people show very little distress indeed. I've grabbed them at my feet, removed the twine, and put them down at my feet again and they carry on feeding. Just as much messing about as when ringing.

I don't think it's necessary to resort to name-calling somebody you don't know (unless it's Gordon Brown).

Colin Key

January 9th, 2010, 09:57 PM

Each to their own, although do you have similar strong opinions on any of the cultural traditions you see in Portugal? Or is it just British culture you don't like?

You aint gonna like it. Mammals have much less protection. I do some hands-on mammal work, and was very surprised at what you can do without licences, compared to ringing. Still, the risks are higher - even small mammals can fight very hard, and it's more dangerous for the operator (injury and disease).

They're marked with radiotags. Why aren't you concerned about bees? They have to be caught, handled and distressed too. Why the distinction?

Canon netting is a rich font of amusing stories. Explosives and keen amateurs are always a comedy mix. Black comedy sometimes.

It is linked to from the BTO's own ringing blog. Indeed, it was one of the BTO's featured items (that same clip), so they're obviously fine with it, and so am I. It's exactly the same method used to catch waterfowl and gulls by the RSPCA etc. I use it to catch feral pigeons in parks when they have twine round their legs. Birds that are that habituated to people show very little distress indeed. I've grabbed them at my feet, removed the twine, and put them down at my feet again and they carry on feeding. Just as much messing about as when ringing.

I don't think it's necessary to resort to name-calling somebody you don't know (unless it's Gordon Brown).

Hello mafting,

Every person I have alerted to that blog and piece of video have found it repugnant, and that includes a couple of ringers. Those yobs are not scientists or even ringing "assistants", just oiks pursuing a "bird fondling" hobby.

Who is Gordon Brown, was he a Graduate, did he know Mrs Robinson?

Colin :laugh:

mafting

January 10th, 2010, 12:20 AM

Those yobs are not scientists or even ringing "assistants", just oiks pursuing a "bird fondling" hobby.

Most ringers are not scientists. They're the legworkers who provide data for scientists to use. That coot thing does seem to be part of a coordinated colour-ringing study though, looking into coot movements.

john robinson

January 17th, 2010, 11:21 AM

I've kept out of this one purely because the subject has been dealt with in the same way many times on just about every forum connected with birds that exists.
I am constantly in touch with the BTO about the subject and in particular - birds being photographed in the hand.
I think the recent Bill baily programme - especially the section with the birds in mist nets was a disgrace and did the BTO and ringing more harm than they realise
As a matter of interest everyone should read the ringers handbook guidelines - especially the section about retaining birds longer than the time needed to ring and measure them.
Photography in extreme cases is only allowed for id puposes with difficult species.
Colour ringing has to be agreed as a special project by the BTO- that I am affraid is not always adhered to. The trouble with threads like this is that sooner or later they get nasty.
John Robinson

mafting

January 17th, 2010, 08:18 PM

Colour ringing has to be agreed as a special project by the BTO- that I am affraid is not always adhered to.

on what basis do you say that?

john robinson

January 17th, 2010, 11:19 PM

Because I have instances (very near to home )where colour ringing has been carried out without full auth. from the BTO .
If you check the BTO guidelines you will see quite clearly the regulations if you are not already aware of them. Also any colour ringing scheme has to be OK'd by the owner of the land- for example EN or Natural England- or RSPB etc etc etc !!
OK ?
Cheers
JohnR

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 12:09 AM

I'm not disputing, I'm just trying to clarify. Accusations are frequently made re ringing, so it pays to try and get to the bottom of them just so as we're being fair.

Can you say how you know that it was without the BTO's authority? You could only really know this through an admission, seeing the paperwork, or by having information from inside the BTO. As this is not generally available information, I'm just wondering how you established this?

And if it was unauthorised, did anyone (you?) report it to the BTO?

I've just looked through the Ringers Manual and I can't find anything about needing a landowner's permission for a colour-ringing project, although generally you'd outline what you planned to do when asking for initial permission. But you're under no 'rule' obligation to inform them of colour-ringing, as far as I can determine (can you point out a page ref in the Manual if I'm wrong?).

Finally, there is no specific rule banning photography, under any circumstances, and it's within 'the rules' the photograph any birds in the hand (rarities or not, for a specific purpose or not). A quick look at the BTO's own ringing blog http://btoringing.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-12-02T17%3A54%3A00Z&max-results=5 shows general ringing of common birds (photo and video). This would generally come under the realm of publicity, or education/illustration. The rules for photography broadly relate to the same thing as for ringing in general - minimise stress, welfare of the bird comes first etc. There are more strict guidelines when it comes to rarities - i.e. don't chase them into nets purely for the purpose of ringing a rarity and don't hold them for overly long periods just so as people can photograph them.

john robinson

January 18th, 2010, 10:11 AM

First of all, I do not wish to name names etc etc, on a forum like this one especially with people using false ID, for obvious reasons. As I said earlier I have been in constant contact with the BTO over one case in particular which was resolved.
You ask how I knew about this or had inside information -
I was site manager for three National nature reserves during my 40 years with NC, NCC,& EN. Thats how I knew. On top of that I have several friends who are ringers.
I can tell you that a colour ringiing scheme has to have authourisation from either the owner of the land or those managing that land. I know of ringers who have colour ringed birds in a friends garden as a favour. That is wrong as it has to be an approved BTO sceme etc, etc.
It is definately against the general rules to keep birds any longer than the time it takes to ring and record. The holding of stuff so that other people can take pictures is definately "not on ". I suggest you ask the BTO what they think about it !

I recall one case in particular where ringers shouted to a bus load of birdwatchers on a trip- " Get over here you lot if you want to get pics of a Yellow browed" I think about 15 people photographed that bird.

JohnR

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 11:37 AM

First of all, I do not wish to name names etc etc, on a forum like this one especially with people using false ID, for obvious reasons. As I said earlier I have been in constant contact with the BTO over one case in particular which was resolved.

Well that's good then, isn't it? The system works in resolving rogue elements (which are present in any walk of life you care to mention, even site managers!)

You ask how I knew about this or had inside information -
I was site manager for three National nature reserves during my 40 years with NC, NCC,& EN. Thats how I knew. On top of that I have several friends who are ringers..

That's not strictly relevant, as you wouldn't automatically know through those channels unless you were told by somebody else (the ringer or the BTO).

I can tell you that a colour ringiing scheme has to have authourisation from either the owner of the land or those managing that land. .

And being a colour-ringer, I can tell you that I can't find that section in the manual, so I think you are mistaken. It is polite to inform the landowner of all planned activities, and it is required to gain permission for ringing on the land. But if, for example, you'd been ringing (no colours) for 10 years and then started doing a colour-ring study on Wrens as part of general acitivities, there is no specific mention (that I can find) of an obligation to tell the landowner/manager that you have slightly modified your activities, especially if there is no obvious conflict/impact (e.g. wing tagging kites is obviously a bit different from colour-ringing wrens).

I know of ringers who have colour ringed birds in a friends garden as a favour. That is wrong as it has to be an approved BTO sceme etc, etc.

That is true, it does have to be approved - but how do you know for sure that it wasn't? (maybe you do, but, again, you'd have to be told this).

I recall one case in particular where ringers shouted to a bus load of birdwatchers on a trip- " Get over here you lot if you want to get pics of a Yellow browed" I think about 15 people photographed that bird..

Which took, what, 5 minutes?

john robinson

January 18th, 2010, 12:49 PM

I seriously suggest you speak to the BTO about this.
You can mention my name with pleasure.
I can assure you that no colour or ringing scheme is allowed on NNRs without specific permission from what would now be NE, or their reseves manager etc,and the BTO too.
Capture of adult birds in boxes would also need to be authorised.
believe me - I,ve been there! Also, when a conservation movement leases land off a private owner, they they have to get his permission to do anything not in the management plan. I,ve been there too !
If you are saying the BTO allows ringers to call in birders or anyone to photograph what they have caught then I am sorry I do not believe it.
I will be contacting the BTO in a minute.
The next thing you will be telling me is that they condone keeping birds overnight when the ringers have caught too many .That does happen
But no doubt you will have an answer.
I rest my case.
John Robinson

Colin Key

January 18th, 2010, 02:09 PM

Which took, what, 5 minutes? And the net result was probably some positive spin for the ringing scheme too, as well as your negative impression ................................. It's hard to demonstrate ringing without hanging onto a bird for a few minutes longer than usual so that people can see it!

Sorry mafting, your perception is well "off rail" here.

Twice last autumn I was contacted on my mobile phone by ringers who had in the first instance trapped Portugal's second Rustic Bunting at a remote location, and subsequently two Little Buntings at the same locality, saying that they could only "hold" the birds for a further 45 minutes; I do not know how long they had been held at that point, but for some time I imaging from the number of "in-hand" photographs. I declined to go even though both species would have been a lifer for me.

I subsequently did a bit of research into Portugal's first Rustic Bunting (which I knew had been trapped at Abicada, a few minutes from where I live) and was rather surprised that the actual time of ringing was 10.00 p.m. I found this rather strange and contacted a good friend of mine who worked at the ringing station at the time only to be told that trapping at that locality usually ended at 5.00 pm and all the birds were taken back to the ringing station where they were processed after the staff had had their dinner!!

I attended a ringing demonstration a few years ago which was intended to educate the local populous as to what the field centre and ringing station actually did - they held two separate sessions, one for English-speaking expats and another for local Portuguese residents. There was a surprisingly good turn-out for the "English" session (it included not just expat residents bit a lot of visiting birders). Unfortunately, the only bird in the nets at the appointed time was a Greenfinch. This poor bird was mauled and molested for at least 15 minutes while each feather tract was displayed, parasites were searched for, biometrics taken, the ring applied and it was then displayed in various poses (full frontal, wing expanded, etc.) for photographers. It died of a (presumed) heart attack before it could be released. The people present at this demonstration, intended to promote the ringing programme, went away TOTALLY DISGUSTED. I did not attend the subsequent "Portuguese" session - I imagine that whatever died was eaten.

I have seen other ringing sessions at other sites where the "trophies" were held and displayed for far too long for photographers - when I see a Spotted Crake subjected to this treatment I get very upset (as with all animals, the larger the individual, the more it affects our subconscious).

John stated in a previous post that "these sort of threads always turn nasty" - I hope that this does not, because I think it is important that views are aired. If you want ME to get nasty, start a thread about vivisection!!

Colin

P.S. Just as an afterthought, what is the BTO view on using taped calls to lure birds into the nets? Very common practice over here (especially by visiting British ringers).

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 03:13 PM

I can assure you that no colour or ringing scheme is allowed on NNRs without specific permission from what would now be NE, or their reseves manager etc,and the BTO too.

That is completely different to the point which we were discussing - you said it needed permission from the land owner or manager. Only now are you specifically saying it is NNR's, which I am aware of. So you are trying to conflate local (NE) rules with national (BTO, any other land) rules, which is very naughty.

Capture of adult birds in boxes would also need to be authorised.
believe me - I,ve been there! .

on NE land, if they request this information beforehand, yes. But again you've just dropped in this new piece of argument topic as if it related to anything you've said earlier. A farmer can request that you ask permission before using a feeder as bait. That doesn't make it an official rule that applies everywhere. So colour-ringing in a garden does not have the same 'local rules' as colour-ringing on a NNR, as they are different land-owners. A specific land-owner.manager can specify whatever they want, regardless of the BTO regs.

Also, when a conservation movement leases land off a private owner, they they have to get his permission to do anything not in the management plan. I,ve been there too !.

What has this to do with ringing?! And it's a very sweeping generalisation that, again, depends on local agreements.

If you are saying the BTO allows ringers to call in birders or anyone to photograph what they have caught then I am sorry I do not believe it. .

Perhaps you should go to a ringing demonstration and see what I mean, then?

But no doubt you will have an answer.
I rest my case.
John Robinson

As long as you continue to make conflated, wrong or confused statements, I'll continue to point them out! No offence, John, but it's unfair to churn out this kind of misleading stuff. It would be good if the debate stuck with the facts.

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 03:21 PM

Sorry mafting, your perception is well "off rail" here.

I don't think so. I'm talking about the BTO and ringing in Britain, as regulated. And you're talking about Portugal. I cannot speak for Portugeuse ringers or their system. hey will be subject to their own Govt's regulations, which may be very different from ours.

Kane Brides

January 18th, 2010, 03:55 PM

''But more seriously, did you find that video sequence of the oik luring waterfowl (I can't remember whether they were Coot, Moorhen or ducks, or all three, but they looked fairly tame anyway) with bread and then grabbing them by the neck when they got close enough? Is that condoned by the licensed ringers "code of conduct"? If it is then bird ringing has just taken a further step down in my view on life''

Firstly let me start by saying I've not read all this thread as I simply do not have the time to do so. And secondly I'm the ''oik, twunt'' who is in that video on the blog - I need to point out that, that bird was not grabbed by the neck - I never catch any birds like this. And indeed as someone else has already stated on here that the same video was published on the BTO's official blog, which they asked my permission to do so - so therefore I guess they are OK with the capture method.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on bird ringing - however I just wanted to point out that the bird was not caught by it's neck and I have no interest in getting involved in this discussion any further.

john robinson

January 18th, 2010, 04:36 PM

"mafting"
Never mind about NNR's etc - just tell me anywhere where ringing can be carried out without the owner or his representatives permission.That was my original point.
You are very good indeed with words but I feel I am not the only one confused here. If you get the chance - talk to Dawn Balmer and mention my name.
I can't reveal the contents of the numerous E Mails I've had from the BTO as they are sent in confidence.
If you look in the ringers handbook there is a section which specifically states (or it did when I last saw it )
"Do not get involved in arguements with or reply to anti ringers" etc.Slightly off the main topic but interesting.
John Robinson

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 05:39 PM

"mafting"
Never mind about NNR's etc - just tell me anywhere where ringing can be carried out without the owner or his representatives permission.That was my original point.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, John, but that was not your point at all. In post 97 you specifically said "Colour ringing has to be agreed as a special project by the BTO- that I am affraid [sp] is not always adhered to." In the very next thread, 98, I asked "on what basis are you saying that". That is what we have been disputing, as you yourself specifically mentioned in every subsequent post. I invite you to review every subsequent exchange between yourself and I if you don't remember, and note the focus on 'colour ringing' in each.

I have already said that no ringing can be carried out without permission of the landowner. Nobody is questioning that. But I think the point has been made re permission/colour-ringing, and readers can make up their own mind whether your claims of malpractice are reliable or not. It's not profitable to debate something if you keep denying what you have clearly typed.

Colin Key

January 18th, 2010, 07:05 PM

I don't think so. I'm talking about the BTO and ringing in Britain, as regulated. And you're talking about Portugal. I cannot speak for Portugeuse ringers or their system. hey will be subject to their own Govt's regulations, which may be very different from ours.

Most (almost all) of the people I refer to are British ringers visiting Portugal. The U.K. is a small territory with a relatively high density of ringers, but it (ringing) goes on around the world to a much greater extent (e.g. "banding" in the U.S.A.) - you cannot defend ringing by simply saying that the "Brits at home" are doing it according to the rules (which in many cases they are clearly not).

Colin

mafting

January 18th, 2010, 08:06 PM

Most (almost all) of the people I refer to are British ringers visiting Portugal. The U.K. is a small territory with a relatively high density of ringers, but it (ringing) goes on around the world to a much greater extent (e.g. "banding" in the U.S.A.) - you cannot defend ringing by simply saying that the "Brits at home" are doing it according to the rules (which in many cases they are clearly not).

Colin

A British ringer in Portugal is operating under Portuguese law, not British. The BTO regulates the implementation of British Law re ringing only on British territory.

There's no point in my trying to defend ringing against you and John, as you have both already made up your mind, and that is the BTO's job in any case. But what I find interesting is that claims of malpractice have been made, and when you scratch beneath the surface of some of them, the claim starts to evaporate. It's not necessarily that official rules have been broken, but more that the accuser simply doesn't like what they see and assume it must be against the rules or should be. But these people probably don't like lots of reasonable things, so it's hard to accommodate them. To keep things sensible, there is the law and a professional body in Britain and also, presumably, Portugal. If someone thinks that they have seen malpractice, the first thing to do would be to ask the person about it, perhaps get their name, and/or contact the regulatory body.

People are entitled to opinions, but to state "in many cases they are clearly not [abiding by the rules]" etc is pretty baseless. What are these many cases, what specific local/national rules were infringed, and what action was taken?

Colin Key

January 18th, 2010, 08:19 PM

A British ringer in Portugal is operating under Portuguese law, not British. The BTO regulates the implementation of British Law re ringing only on British territory.

And what exactly has that statement got to do with the discussion? Are you saying that British ringers operating under BTO regulations at home can move abroad to do as they wish?

Colin

Colin Key

January 18th, 2010, 08:24 PM

If someone thinks that they have seen malpractice, the first thing to do would be to ask the person about it, perhaps get their name, and/or contact the regulatory body.

This was done in the case of the bunch of idiots with a mobile 200 metre mist net who tried to trap the Moussier's Redstart (the first for Portugal) at Cabo de São Vicente. Phone calls (from on-site) were made, emails sent and letters written - result = "nada".

Waste of time following protocol and procedures in this sort of situation - "shutting the stable door" comes to mind.

Colin

mafting

January 19th, 2010, 04:07 PM

This was done in the case of the bunch of idiots with a mobile 200 metre mist net who tried to trap the Moussier's Redstart (the first for Portugal) at Cabo de São Vicente. Phone calls (from on-site) were made, emails sent and letters written - result = "nada".

Waste of time following protocol and procedures in this sort of situation - "shutting the stable door" comes to mind.

Colin

Colin, you haven't said if the specific activity (I assume you mean 20 metre net?) in any way infringed the rules in Portugal - perhaps it doesn't? There may have been a valid reason. It's hard to judge anything without all of these details, and easy for you to paint it whatever way you like. There is the automatic assumption that it was malpractice, when perhaps it was perfectly valid under Portugal's ringing scheme (or the ringer had dispensation)?

Colin Key

January 19th, 2010, 06:13 PM

Colin, you haven't said if the specific activity (I assume you mean 20 metre net?) in any way infringed the rules in Portugal - perhaps it doesn't? There may have been a valid reason. It's hard to judge anything without all of these details, and easy for you to paint it whatever way you like. There is the automatic assumption that it was malpractice, when perhaps it was perfectly valid under Portugal's ringing scheme (or the ringer had dispensation)?

mafting,

I do not give a toss whether this infringed the "rules" in Portugal or not. The incident involved approximately 15 people with 200 metres of mist net supported by bamboo poles arranged into an arc around the area to which this bird (the very one shown in my avatar) had been faithful for weeks, whilst those not deployed in supporting the net were beating the bushes with sticks in order to flush the bird. They did not catch the bird, but it did bugger off, presumably as a result of this fiasco.

They were there as "trophy hunters" (this having been Portugal's first Moussier's Redstart), nothing more, nothing less. To have trapped that bird and ringed it would have served no useful purpose whatsoever.

There is more to this tale but I cannot relate it without naming names, which I am not prepared to do. Suffice to say some of the people involved gave false names and also stated that they were acting under the auspices of a certain Portuguese organisation when in fact they were not.

I really do find it difficult to understand why you appear to defend such activity on the grounds that it might be within local "rules and regulations".

Colin

mafting

January 19th, 2010, 07:49 PM

I really do find it difficult to understand why you appear to defend such activity on the grounds that it might be within local "rules and regulations".

Colin

Because I don't know all of the details, wasn't there, don't know the local regulations, don't know what permissions were granted and for what purpose the bird was being caught, only have the version/opinion of someone who is admittedly extremely biassed against it.

I am not defending anything, but on the basis of the above I don't wish to join you in condemning it either. I can think of several reasonable circumstances when deploying 200 m of net for one specific bird would be totally justifiable. But this really isn't getting anywhere, so after 115 posts let's draw a veil, shall we?

Colin Key

January 19th, 2010, 09:11 PM

......I can think of several reasonable circumstances when deploying 200 m of net for one specific bird would be totally justifiable. But this really isn't getting anywhere, so after 115 posts let's draw a veil, shall we?

Sorry mafting, not going to don my "Burka" just yet!

I would be interested in what these "several reasonable circumstances are"?

What I witnessed on the Sunday was apparently nothing compared to what happened on the Saturday (yes, this mob were at it for two whole days). I and a friend from Lisbon (who had come down just to see this bird) met a couple of British expats who had been there the day before - they were not idiots and not prone to exaggerate, in fact he was a retired lecturer from Canterbury and she a retired teacher. They lived in France, were on holiday in southern Spain at Doñana, and had seen the entries and photos of this bird on my blog and website; as a result they had also made the journey to Cabo de São Vicente specially to see this bird. They described the previous day's events as "like something from the Wild West, like trying to corral feral horses".

I repeat, there are no possible circumstances in which trapping this bird could yield a shred of ornithological information. Those responsible were "happy trappers" just out for a bit of sport and a "net tick" (and I might add that although no-one was brought to account over the incident, the ringing fraternity here was very aggrieved over the whole affair).

Colin

john robinson

January 19th, 2010, 11:59 PM

“Mafting “
Colour Ringing
I really do wish you would reveal your real Identity. (Probably the CEO of the BTO)
Ok – I,m not too good with words but read this and make your own assumtions. Read this very carefully “Mafting “
When I first came to this woodland reserve as Senior Warden many years back there were great numbers of Pied Flycatchers breeding Some in the few boxes around and a lot in wet rotting alders in the valleys, and some in old orchard trees , and others in more natural sites. We often had two pairs just in the garden alone.

Over the years the ringers got involved and initially it was not too bad. As the Pieds got rarer the ringing became more intense.
After I tretired it became silly. As the nuimbers of breeding pairs decreased – the ringing intensity increased. One ringer put up 600 boxes , which he said was for conservation reasons. ! They then started the colour ringing stuff with adults caught in the boxes etc. ( Which does not disturb them of course ! -oh no - the birds actually enjoy it !).
I know of instances where birds being kept off nests resulted in lower hatch rates
I am talking about three colour rings plus one coventional BTO ring on each bird.

Now- we know there are problems with all migratory birds problems in the Sahara etc ,but the number of Pieds in this forest has gone down to about three pairs. ( I have other reasons for this such as the high number of boxes attracting too many tit species and causind a food competition problem with the defoliating moth larvae (tortrix)in the peak young feeding period.))
But still the ringers have to adorn the few remaining breeding birds with three coloured and one metal ring. That is 4 rings.

Now this is my point.

Colour ringing ( RAS ) is supposed to be a system where the ringer can ID the birds WITHOUT RE TRAPPING . That was the whole point of the system. So, if that ringer sees a particular bird again he does not have to re trap it. ( That's a laugh)
But in this case ,the ringer only comes in this forest to ring the birds in boxes and that’s the end of it. How can he get any useful inlo if he doesn’t spend any time afterwards watching the birds he has ringed ? This to me proves it’s a numbers game. A field sport.
So –if any bird watcher sees a Pied Fly in Southampton for example with coloured rings on – is he or she going to be able to get to a souce to ID that bird ? – I doubt it very much. Its very difficult to work out the code anyway, and I have photographed them at very close quarters.
And in any case if a bird is found dead- it will have the metal BTO ID ring on anyway. Althogh I don’t agree with it – is that not enough?
After making numerous enquiries , to many sources it appears that no real useful info has resulted from all this disturbance over the years.
It has not resulted in any beneficial information as to the ecology of Pied Fly catchers. And their ecological requirements.
You may assume from this that I am biased.
If so you are dead right I am.
Does all this disturbance tell us where Pied Flies go in the Winter ? Come on !
John Robinson

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 11:19 AM

I repeat, there are no possible circumstances in which trapping this bird could yield a shred of ornithological information.

Isotope analysis, blood analysis, measurements, ageing/sexing (if necessary), subsequent movements. We still don't know where most vagrants come from, or where they go to, or why. You're only really going to get this through tagging, exactly in the way that we found out what yer average Swallow does.

Sorry, John, your tone is unpleasant so I'm not going to play along.

Colin Key

January 20th, 2010, 12:38 PM

Isotope analysis, blood analysis, measurements, ageing/sexing (if necessary), subsequent movements. We still don't know where most vagrants come from, or where they go to, or why. You're only really going to get this through tagging, exactly in the way that we found out what yer average Swallow does.

That response does not really address my question mafting. Without isoptope and blood analyses, biometrics, etc. I can fairly confidently state (with a 99+% degree of certainty) that this was an adult male (who cares whether it was 2 or five years old?) Moussier's Redstart which came from Morocco. Why do we want to know where it was going (probably nowhere, since it was faithful to the same few hundred square metres for over two months)? If they were coming over in droves and moving on then that information might be useful, but this was single vagrant which probably fell prey to the many Kestrels in the area.

The great value of this particular bird was in eco-tourism terms; I took great delight in taking many people to see it, and very grateful they were too, and there were lots more people who traveled long distances to get a glimpse of this exceedingly handsome individual. If you had been on site at the time attempting to explain to these admirers that the trappers were acting in order to collect feathers and blood samples for isotope analysis, etc. you would have been laughed out of court (or possibly worse).

I have spoken to the coordinator of ringing in Portugal about this incident, and he totally agrees with my views, as does every single birder and birdwatcher who were aware of the facts.

No amount of ornithological "blether" can mitigate what happened in this particular case.

Colin

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 02:51 PM

The great value of this particular bird was in eco-tourism terms; I took great delight in taking many people to see it, and very grateful they were too, and there were lots more people who traveled long distances to get a glimpse of this exceedingly handsome individual. If you had been on site at the time attempting to explain to these admirers that the trappers were acting in order to collect feathers and blood samples for isotope analysis, etc. you would have been laughed out of court (or possibly worse).

I have spoken to the coordinator of ringing in Portugal about this incident, and he totally agrees with my views, as does every single birder and birdwatcher who were aware of the facts.

No amount of ornithological "blether" can mitigate what happened in this particular case.

Colin

Ah, I get it now! You lost a few bob giving tours. Now we get to the nub of it. You look after your niche interests, Colin, and I'll look after mine. ;o)

Colin Key

January 20th, 2010, 06:53 PM

Ah, I get it now! You lost a few bob giving tours. Now we get to the nub of it. You look after your niche interests, Colin, and I'll look after mine. ;o)

Mafting,

I have never accepted a penny/centimo for ever showing anyone a bird (I don't need the money), in fact exactly the opposite - I have spent a small fortune on diesel ferrying my Land Rover full of birders here there and everywhere purely and simply because I get great personal satisfaction out of the obvious delight that these folk (some friends and acquaintances, some total strangers) experience from seeing herds of Great Bustard, groups of Black-bellied Sandgrouse at a water-hole at dawn, nesting Collared Pratincole and Gull-billed Tern, etc, etc.

My reference to "eco-tourism" relates to the "richness" that wildlife in general bestows on any area and how it can contribute to the economy, not how it it can line the pockets of bird-tour companies. I have to be careful here because I have good friends who are "professional" birders, and I would not wish to upset them, but I myself would never, ever, go on a guided bird tour.

I am assuming that, since you are an educated person, your previous comment was "tongue in cheek", which is how I took it.

Do not forget that there are many more birders and birdwatchers than there are ornithologists, and that if it "comes to a fight" you will almost certainly lose.

Colin :spinny:

Red-eyed Video

January 20th, 2010, 06:55 PM

Ah, I get it now! You lost a few bob giving tours. Now we get to the nub of it. You look after your niche interests, Colin, and I'll look after mine. ;o)

Your posts are usually well informed, well written, if a little naive and you resolutely stand by your beliefs. Why then do you let yourself down so badly when you know you're on a loser?

Take the ridiculous remarks on the Ruddy Duck cull thread where you compare killing protozoa in drinking water to 7 blokes wielding .22 rifles blasting ducks to death. If you are going to enter into heated discussion why not see it through instead of hitting below the belt or making stupid comparisons?

By the way, a Canon is a camera, a cannon is used in warfare and for frightening roosting waders.

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 07:29 PM

Your posts are usually well informed, well written, if a little naive and you resolutely stand by your beliefs. Why then do you let yourself down so badly when you know you're on a loser?

Take the ridiculous remarks on the Ruddy Duck cull thread where you compare killing protozoa in drinking water to 7 blokes wielding .22 rifles blasting ducks to death. If you are going to enter into heated discussion why not see it through instead of hitting below the belt or making stupid comparisons?

By the way, a Canon is a camera, a cannon is used in warfare and for frightening roosting waders.

How, exactly, does one 'see it through'? Fisticuffs? A duel? Do I ring the BTO and tell them it's all off, or is Colin forced to fit shackles on redstarts for a month of sundays? It's an internet thread, not The Hague. What do you propose as the end point? Does the winner get a prize (a knew Cannon camra two record canon knetting)?

Comparing a protozoan with a Ruddy Duck may, indeed, sound ridiculous to you, but then you're clearly not a philosopher (or a Buddhist?). A life is a life, is it not? If not, then you're accepting a hierarchy of life based on subjective opinion. In which case, I rank Ruddy Ducks below White-headed.

Seeing as ringing is legal and widely practiced, and Ruddy Ducks are rather thin in the ranks these days, I'd politely suggest that your gang might be onto the loser.

Colin Key

January 20th, 2010, 08:28 PM

How, exactly, does one 'see it through'? Fisticuffs? A duel? Do I ring the BTO and tell them it's all off, or is Colin forced to fit shackles on redstarts for a month of sundays? It's an internet thread, not The Hague. What do you propose as the end point? Does the winner get a prize (a knew Cannon camra two record canon knetting)?

Comparing a protozoan with a Ruddy Duck may, indeed, sound ridiculous to you, but then you're clearly not a philosopher (or a Buddhist?). A life is a life, is it not? If not, then you're accepting a hierarchy of life based on subjective opinion. In which case, I rank Ruddy Ducks below White-headed.

Seeing as ringing is legal and widely practiced, and Ruddy Ducks are rather thin in the ranks these days, I'd politely suggest that your gang might be onto the loser.

Hmm,

I did not understand much of this post mafting, but I think that you are in a rather deep hole and digging with a large shovel (or spade, if you wish, depending on which end of the country you come from).

This entire thread has moved me to proceed to secure more information from the relevant bodies involved because I have a great desire to make the trapping and tagging of wild animals illegal unless there is a well-stated and justified cause for this practice.

"He who dares, wins",

Colin :ohdear:

Red-eyed Video

January 20th, 2010, 08:29 PM

Comparing a protozoan with a Ruddy Duck may, indeed, sound ridiculous to you, but then you're clearly not a philosopher (or a Buddhist?). A life is a life, is it not? If not, then you're accepting a hierarchy of life based on subjective opinion. In which case, I rank Ruddy Ducks below White-headed.

Seeing as ringing is legal and widely practiced, and Ruddy Ducks are rather thin in the ranks these days, I'd politely suggest that your gang might be onto the loser.

Not wishing to cross post from one thread to another I'll just answer the specific question here.

Well done, Im not a philosopher, I'm a strict vegetarian but not a Buddhist. The point I was making about the Ruddy Duck cull was nothing to do with taking a life be it chryptosporidium or Ruddy Duck. It was the way it was done. 7 men, 7 vans & trailers, 7 guns, 7 boats and a lot of disturbance to the wildlife on a reserve set aside for nature.

I'm sure I would have been equally upset if Anglian Water had boiled Pitsford Reservoir in its entirety to get rid of the protozoa which would have been equal to the overkill (sic) employed for the destruction of Ruddy Ducks.

And, Lord Haw Haw, I'm a pacifist and I don't have a gang so no fisticuffs. Sorry, I don't do shadow boxing on internet forums.

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 08:40 PM

Well done, Im not a philosopher, I'm a strict vegetarian but not a Buddhist. The point I was making about the Ruddy Duck cull was nothing to do with taking a life be it chryptosporidium or Ruddy Duck. It was the way it was done. 7 men, 7 vans & trailers, 7 guns, 7 boats and a lot of disturbance to the wildlife on a reserve set aside for nature.

Wrong. Staines is owned by Thames Water, and is set aside for the supply of drinking water for people, not ducks. It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (not birdwatching or waterfowl collection interest), and as such it is perfectly within its remit to cull ruddies there.

I'm not sure why the objection to the number 7 and the use of guns - would you prefer a man chasing it round with a pea shooter? If a job's to be done, why not do it right? Shock and awe, and all that (not Quack and "Awww!").

So, we're happy with ringing then? Good. Germany calling, Germany calling...

Red-eyed Video

January 20th, 2010, 09:01 PM

Wrong. Staines is owned by Thames Water, and is set aside for the supply of drinking water for people, not ducks. It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (not birdwatching or waterfowl collection interest), and as such it is perfectly within its remit to cull ruddies there.

I'm not sure why the objection to the number 7 and the use of guns - would you prefer a man chasing it round with a pea shooter? If a job's to be done, why not do it right? Shock and awe, and all that (not Quack and "Awww!").

So, we're happy with ringing then? Good. Germany calling, Germany calling...

This is getting tiresome. You have conveniently edited out my reference to Pitsford Reservoir in my previous post where the cull I witnessed took place, on the side set aside as a Nature Reserve.

I think you'll find it was Lee who witnessed the same atrocity at Staines.

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 09:16 PM

This is getting tiresome. You have conveniently edited out my reference to Pitsford Reservoir in my previous post where the cull I witnessed took place, on the side set aside as a Nature Reserve.

I think you'll find it was Lee who witnessed the same atrocity at Staines.

Don't know Pitsford (thought you were referring to Staines, as you didn't specify), but it seems to be the same situation. Owned by Anglian Water with the purpose of supplying water to Northampton, designated a SSSI, and only managed by the Wildlife Trusts by agreement with Anglian. So Anglian own it, Natural England call the shots on the SSSI, and Wildlife Trust are only there through goodwill. Priorities take that order, and it hasn't been 'set aside as a nature reserve' at all. Seems to be a working reservoir and designated SSSI first and foremost.

http://www.wildlifebcnp.org/reserves/reserve.php?reserveid=81

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 09:25 PM

This entire thread has moved me to proceed to secure more information from the relevant bodies involved because I have a great desire to make the trapping and tagging of wild animals illegal unless there is a well-stated and justified cause for this practice.

The problem you face, Colin, is that word 'justified'. You're going to have one idea, someone else is going to have another. What you really want to do is ban it completely, be honest.

What you need to do is lobby national Government. But you'll need evidence that it harms birds. As ringers are "pillocks" and can't be trusted to do anything properly, you're going to have to gather your own data. I suggest a 10 year ringing study of 10,000 birds, to look for ill effects. I'll train you, if you like? Your current method of capture (kitty-catch) seems much more lethal than the BTO's.

Colin Key

January 20th, 2010, 09:27 PM

mafting

January 20th, 2010, 10:00 PM

This thread is going "off topic" - could I remind contributors that the issue is whether "ringing is good or bad" (that was the OP's title, not mine), and that reasoned and (relatively :wink:) polite contributions are welcome from all sides.

This is a very important subject which demands open and honest discussion without too much venom.

Thank you.

Colin

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

No need for the badge, Colin, you don't really have to ring 10,000 birds.

An open discussion is not possible, as it's basically a ringing-bashing thread that's gone as far as it can.

I'd urge any ringers to check page 105-106 of the manual before posting.

Johnny X

January 20th, 2010, 11:19 PM

Tremendous entertainment this thread, top work by the lads! The fella wittering on about ruddy floaters needs to sling it though...

I agree with elements of what both sides have said. Doubtlessly ringing provides vital data and I suspect that some of the contributors have lost sight of how little we would actually know for sure about bird movements and populations without it.

On the other hand the actual practice leads a lot to be desired...and I dislike intensely the practice of targeting of individual vagrants eg the Kilrenny Masked Shrike - why did the BTO sanction that one and what was gained from it?

john robinson

January 21st, 2010, 12:45 AM

I remember a delightfull incident which occurred 100 yards outside my reserve, on Forestry Commission land some years back.
I was quite used to Goshawk calls as I had been involved in dawn surveys in February when the birds can be quite- no- very - vocal.
I could hear the female distress calls or more accurately descibed as screams from my house which is a fair way away. I drove to the area where we knew one of the two pairs in the forest present at the time were nesting.
When I got to the tree the climber(not a ringer) had lowered the young in bags to the ringers below. I was also surprised to see the local RSPB officer present who was friend of mine.
They had no need to inform me as it was just outside the actual National Nature Reserve’ The birds had actually nested within the reserve previously.
In the meantime the adult female was flying around the nest site screaming her head off.
The birds were ringed and then it suddenly it emerged they had got the wrong sized rings on. They had to be removed and that is a hell of a lot harder than getting them on !!.
Meanwhile ,- female still going nutty flying arround and screaming.
RSPB man starting to look quite embarassed especially when I turned up. !
After about half an hour, all young were re ringed and the climber took them back up.
All good stuff.
The birds never nested in the area again , which they had used for three years and yet in Europe they often used a site for years on end if not messed around with.

But hey, ringing has no effect on birds ot their nesting patterns or site sellections at all. And all that messing didn’t really prove anything apart from the fact that Goshawks get pretty ....ed off when you disturb the nest site.
Stuff really worth knowing.
John Robinson

mafting

January 21st, 2010, 12:58 AM

John Robinson, post #101:
"First of all, I do not wish to name names etc etc, on a forum like this one...for obvious reasons."

john robinson

January 21st, 2010, 01:23 AM

Hide behind my name "Mafting"

The the term " clutching at straws " has been perfectly exlemplified by your latest post which is completely un related to my latest example of " licenced ringing " and bad practice.
You are very good at evading the real issues with good use of the english language and it is great the way in which you are able to avoid replying to the the real questions.
I have had a reply from the BTO and it does not tally up with your rules. Maybe you should have a word with them. Especially about the photography rules.
JR
PS I now know who you are which explains a great deal.

mafting

January 21st, 2010, 01:34 AM

I did mention that I didn't wish to debate ringing with you, John, due to the lack of civility in your posts. But I do think you should edit your post to remove those names re Goshawks, which is what I was hinting at.

Red-eyed Video

January 21st, 2010, 08:11 AM

Tremendous entertainment this thread, top work by the lads! The fella wittering on about ruddy floaters needs to sling it though...

Thanks mate, this used to be a pleasant forum until the faceless morons arrived. Now one gets abuse for expressing an opinion.

Goodbye.

Johnny X

January 21st, 2010, 08:55 AM

Thanks mate, this used to be a pleasant forum until the faceless morons arrived. Now one gets abuse for expressing an opinion.

Goodbye.

Dude, it's a thread about Ringing not Ruddy Ducks. You did that one somewhere else and top work is was too! I'll stick some assorted smilies on for the slow on the uptake...

:smile::laugh::puzzled::cry::hmpf::elvis:

Colin Key

January 21st, 2010, 09:46 PM

Calm down dears!

Johnny, your post #133 was very sensible. John's post #134 mirrors some of the stupidly destructive ringing activities which I have witnessed (I have referred to the attempted capture of a local Eagle Owl in a previous post, causing it and its newly-found mate to bugger off).

Do not let this degenerate into an abusive slanging session when the "bird fondlers" are clearly floundering in their own pseudo-scientific fantasy world.

Colin :ohdear:

mafting

January 21st, 2010, 11:09 PM

Do not let this degenerate into an abusive slanging session when the "bird fondlers" are clearly floundering in their own pseudo-scientific fantasy world.

Colin :ohdear:

Do you not find that statement slightly hypocritical, Colin? Note which way all the degenerative abuse is going. It's rather unseemly when those who claim to be 'moderaters' are anything but moderate in their own language, and sling around claims of professional misconduct just becasue they don't happen to chime with their own personal preferences.

Perhaps an unbiassed moderator could do a bit of moderating and lock this thread before any more slanderous rants are published (and perhaps remove the names of individuals posted when they are not able to defend themselves)?

john robinson

January 22nd, 2010, 12:27 AM

Colin
Have sent a PM
JR:SLEEP:

Colin Key

January 22nd, 2010, 10:23 AM

Colin
Have sent a PM
JR:SLEEP:

John,

Have not received it :err:.

Colin

Colin Key

January 22nd, 2010, 09:11 PM

Do you not find that statement slightly hypocritical, Colin? Note which way all the degenerative abuse is going. It's rather unseemly when those who claim to be 'moderaters' are anything but moderate in their own language, and sling around claims of professional misconduct just becasue they don't happen to chime with their own personal preferences.

Perhaps an unbiassed moderator could do a bit of moderating and lock this thread before any more slanderous rants are published (and perhaps remove the names of individuals posted when they are not able to defend themselves)?

Mafting,

I have had an "off forum" discussion with several members and we have all come to the conclusion that you should take up birdwatching - it will get you out a bit more, away from the computer and maybe even away from "the nets", which will give you a much broader and realistic perspective on the avian world (and the world in general).

You have indicated in another thread ("Book Reviews") that you are a bit too mean with the "folding stuff" to fork out the £16.80 (at Amazon U.K.) for the 2nd edition of Collins Bird Guide. We are all quite prepared to club together to buy this for you (but would prefer to wait until March when the soft-back edition is published).

We feel sure that you would enjoy it very much and that this new hobby would "get you out of yourself" a bit. We are even giving some consideration to buying you a second-hand binocular to enhance your enjoyment - we presume that with your current preoccupation with handling birds you only require reading spectacles to enjoy the finer details of your "captures".

Rest assured, to see the little darlings flying about in their natural habitat rather than thrashing about in a mist net, will give you so much more pleasure.

Best wishes,

Colin :smile:

mafting

January 22nd, 2010, 10:46 PM

Disappointing, Colin. But good to see the Grumpy Old Men enjoying themselves!

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

Why do we ring birds?

Much has been discovered about birds by watching and counting them, but such methods rarely allow birds to be identified as individuals. This is essential if we are to learn about how long they live and when and where they move, questions that are vital for bird conservation. Placing a lightweight, uniquely numbered, metal ring around a bird’s leg provides a reliable and harmless method of identifying birds as individuals. Each ring also has an address so that anyone finding a ringed bird can help by reporting where and when it was found and what happened to it. Some ringing projects also use colour rings to allow individual birds to be identified without being caught.
Although we have been ringing birds in Britain and Ireland for nearly 100 years, we are still discovering new facts about migration routes and wintering areas. However, the main focus of the Ringing Scheme today is monitoring bird populations. Ringing allows us to study how many young birds leave the nest and survive to become adults, as well as how many adults survive the stresses of breeding, migration and severe weather. Changes in survival rates and other aspects of birds’ biology help us to understand the causes of population declines. Such information is so important for conservation that the BTO runs two special projects to collect it. The Constant Effort Sites (CES) scheme provides information on population size, breeding success and survival of bird species living in scrub and wetland habitats. Ringers work at over 130 CES scheme sites each year. The Retrapping Adults for Survival (RAS) project gathers survival data for a wide range of species, particularly those of current conservation concern.
Ringing allowed us to show that declines in the number of Sedge Warblers breeding in Britain and Ireland was linked to lower levels of rainfall in their African wintering quarters. We have also found that the recent dramatic decline in the numbers of Song Thrushes has been caused by a reduction in the survival rate of young birds. This information will help us to identify the environmental factors responsible for the decline.

Does ringing affect the birds?

The simple answer is no. Ringing is carried out by skilled ringers with the utmost consideration for the birds’ welfare. It is not surprising that ringing has little effect on birds because relative to the bird’s weight, wearing a ring is similar to a person carrying a mobile phone. It is essential that birds are not affected unduly by the fitting and wearing of a ring; if they were, ringing would not tell us how normal birds behave. Many studies have shown that birds ringed during the breeding season quickly return to incubating eggs, or feeding chicks, once they are released, and long distance migrants continue to travel thousands of miles between breeding and wintering grounds.

How are birds caught for ringing?

Birds are caught for ringing in a variety of ways. About twenty percent are ringed as chicks in the nest; this is valuable because their precise age and origin are then known. The method most frequently used to catch fully-grown birds is the mist net. This is a fine net erected between poles, and is designed to catch birds in flight. This method is very effective but birds can only be removed safely from mist nets by experienced ringers who have received special training.

Learning to ring

The skills necessary to become a ringer can only be learnt by practice under the close supervision of experienced ringers; effectively an apprenticeship. Essential skills include the safe and efficient catching and handling of birds, identification, ageing, measuring and record keeping. For this reason, ringers undertake a period of training, generally of one or two years, during which they are only allowed to ring birds under supervision. Their progress is assessed by an independent ringer, whose own ability has been judged to be of a high standard. In this way the BTO Ringing Scheme maintains very high standards of bird welfare and scientific data. A BTO ringing permit is also a legal requirement for anyone ringing birds. It has to be renewed annually.

Ringing in Britain and Ireland

The British and Irish Ringing Scheme is organised by the BTO. Over 800,000 birds are ringed in Britain and Ireland each year by over 2,000 trained ringers, most of whom are volunteers. On average fewer than one out of every fifty birds ringed is subsequently reported to the BTO, so every report of a ringed bird is of value.

john robinson

January 22nd, 2010, 11:48 PM

“Mafting”
I really am getting a little tired of your constant spin about the values of ringing with all the stock press quotes, BTO supplied text, handbook quotes etc.etc ,etc.
As you yourself said , the days of swallows hibernating in ponds have now gone.
You say moderators should not be biased. I am not biased but I am as much entitled to have an opinion, as you are. Not wishing to appear “soppy” , but those birds out there do not belong to anyone, and there are a hell of a lot of people out there that do not want to see them festooned with man’s artifacts

The constant colour ringing in Wyre Forest over the years of Pied Flycatchers,has not yielded one s.... of useful information about the ecology of the birds or any information on how to manage the reserve for them.
In the first place when Yapp did his early work , they were only there because of the boxes put up anyway.
You really must get out into the big wide world and accept that all ringing activities are not happening like your BTO manual of guidance says,or assumes they are. If you want me to post some really good stuff then there’s no problem. But there will be sites, dates and names.
I myself have 55 years of experience of ringing activities, starting with the wash wader ringing group which was on the go probably before you were around.
I can quote literally dozens of examples of bad practice, but you don’t like me quoting “names “.This is obviously because you do not want my observations corroborated. I could name several ringers that I know in the past 20 years that have packed it in because they are not happy with what they were seeing. But like many when controversy looms they fade into obscurity.
I attended many of the old yearly ringing conventions in the old days in Swanick - Derbyshire- probably something else you know little of, and the one thing that sticks in my mind was how much of a “numbers “ game there was in the ringing fraternity.
I would be the first to admit that years ago the practice did yield useful information. Today there appears to me to be a constant desire to “think of a project “

The BTO have come to the amazing conclusion and published it in the nationals and other journals that the recent bad weather and snow has made a lot of birds go into gardens!
Well – who would you believe it !!

On a final note - and this is my last post.

I am quite confident that the use of my bird photographs over the past 55 years, in more publications than I can name in this space have done a damn site more for bird conservation and encourageing an interest in them than any BTO condoned “bird in hand or net shots” which that organisation claims they are allowed for.

John Robinson

Steve Fletcher

January 23rd, 2010, 12:23 AM

Ringing allowed us to show that declines in the number of Sedge Warblers breeding in Britain and Ireland was linked to lower levels of rainfall in their African wintering quarters.

As a mere amateur, i would like to know what the scientists will now do to increase the rainfall in their African wintering quarters now it has been proved to have a detrimental effect on wintering birds.

Why does it matter where birds overwinter, im sure they pick a location where the climate and food suits them perfectly, so they must be very happy there, what does it have to do with us ?

mafting

January 23rd, 2010, 12:52 AM

Past, current and future value of ringing in conservation and biology, with articles from RSPB, Cambridge University, Newcastle University, CEH, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris), The Institute for Bird Populations (USA), Institute of Ecology and Evolution (Universität Bern), University of Copenhagen, JNCC, Institute of Avian Research (Germany):

http://www.bto.org/ringing/rmj/rmj-24-3.htm

Colin Key

January 23rd, 2010, 08:58 AM

Disappointing, Colin.

Oh, go on then, we will buy you the hard-back version :biggrin:.

Colin

mafting

January 23rd, 2010, 11:25 AM

And deprive you of your pensions and Cold Weather Payments?! I couldn't, Colin, I just couldn't...

Steve Fletcher

January 23rd, 2010, 01:31 PM

MichaelF

January 23rd, 2010, 02:17 PM

Does ringing affect the birds?

The simple answer is no ... wearing a ring is similar to a person carrying a mobile phone
But carrying a mobile phone affects people . . . look what happens when it goes off when they're driving! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

As a mere amateur, i would like to know what the scientists will now do to increase the rainfall in their African wintering quarters now it has been proved to have a detrimental effect on wintering birds.

Reduce grazing and plant trees. That'll increase rainfall.

Whether it'll be feasible with human population pressures in the region is another matter. Probably not. :hmpf:

mafting

January 23rd, 2010, 03:55 PM

Reading the articles you recommended proved a few interesting points.

It states that due to ringing, we now know Bitterns prefer reed beds with open areas.
Larks and Buntings thrive better when fed in adverse weather conditions.
Intensive farming had proved detrimental to birds.

Some stunning stuff there.

The only reason this doesn't sound "stunning" is because those studies proved it. Management is only enacted on evidence. Ringing helps in providing that evidence, on which conservation decisions are made.

The idea that bitterns need open areas as well as reed bed is quite novel, actually, and directly informs current reedbed management for this species.

Bittern BAP: http://www.lincsbiodiversity.org.uk/docs/BAP/Themes/Rivers_and_Wetlands/Bittern%20(2006).pdf
Detailed studies on bittern ecology have been carried out by the RSPB, leading to a
greater understanding of habitat requirements. Improved monitoring of populations has
been achieved through voice pattern analysis, radio tracking and ringing birds.

other studies:
Bearded Tit BAP:
The bearded tit was first seen in the Tay
reedbeds in 1992. Through the monitoring efforts of the Tay
Ringing Group, the significance of the Tay reedbed has
become apparent as it supports a large percentage (up to
25%) of the UK population. http://www.taysidebiodiversity.co.uk/Cosultation_HAPS_SAPS/PDFs/Estuarine_Reedbeds_HAP.pdf