Theresa wrote:

> I'm probably going to get deluged for this, but for my education, what
> exactly is the purpose of going out and banding a bunch of random birds?
> Especially common birds?

Absolutely no purpose whatsoever, that's why it is almost never done. That is
a qualified statement, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and most of
the other banding schemes I have experience with (apart from Fish & Wildlife)
have general banding programmes. This means that qualified banders can go out
and catch any species (other than rare breeding ones which require a special
licence). In the UK there are about 1 million birds banded each year. The
majority of this total is account for in about four species - starling,
blackbird, blue tit, greenfinch. A lot is known about these birds so the
information generated from reports of birds would semm at face value to
contribute little new knowledge. However, recently....

large numbers of starlings banded in northern Scotland have shown that the
birds migrate north in winter to the dairy farming areas of Aberdeenshire and
Caithness.

the Scandanavian population of starlings has collapsed in recent years.
Numbers of birds controlled (captured and released) in the UK has declined
dramatically.

Greenfinches - long considered to be resident, moving only within the UK.
This is now likely to be a false assumption. An increase of activity of
Norwegian banders is resulting in a lot of Norwegian birds being caught in
northen Scotland - completely new information.


The BTO carries out a lot of population monitoring. Banding large number of
birds, particularly small passerines, is the only way to establish a pattern
indentifying wintering areas. Analysis of recoveries can produce information
on mortality highlighting regional variations etc. The Constant Effort Site
scheme is used to measure annual breeding success.

Large scale banding programmes come at a price, but they do provide the only
feasible mechanism for generating some kinds of data. I hope you get the
picture.


> I see discussions that make me think people are just going out and banding
> whatever they see. For any scientific data to be
> useful, shouldn't there be some sort of plan for what you're trying to find
> out and how you're going to achieve that? Is there someone collecting these
> birds at the other end? Are there specific goals? It seems like if you're
> going to band birds, the things you're trying to find out would be different
> for each species, so why wouldn't you focus on finding and banding a given
> species or family of birds?

In an ideal world.... There are logistical, financial, and personal
limitations in trying to acheive this eutopia. In the UK a lot of banders are
amateurs, ie paying the rent does not depend on doing a good job, then a lot
of banding falls short of this ideal. But for the most part the BTO and
banding groups are striving to achieve this. The result is some really good
science is produced, a lot of mediocre stuff and a few bad ones - just like
the professionals :-)


> Is there some grand organization that centrally
> collects and collates all this information? And how does it get used?

The Bird Banding Lab collates and uses data in the US. All the banding
schemes in the world exchange data for studies. Ringing and Migration, a BTO
publication recently carries a 80 page paper of an analysis of fieldfare
recoveries for ALL of mainland Europe. This work was carried out by an amateur
!!! Lots of stuff is generated, but it is incredibly difficult thing to do -
sampling error cripples this kind of examination, but in the adsence of any
better way to collect data (satellite transmitters weighing 0.01g which have a
5-50 year lifetime are goingto be total science fiction for quite a few
years/decades to come), so it is still worth trying given the pressures on
wild birds and the environment.


> I'm not even sure I know what information goes on a band and what you're
trying to find out by doing this, other than migration patterns.

Each band carries an address to which the finder should report the bird and a
unique number (well unique within a banding schemes "jurisdiction"). In
reporting finding a banded bird the following information is useful:

Species (optional), location, time & date, circumstances (dead - if so how
long, alive, etc).

Migration is the obvious answer to this, especially when considering large
scale banding programmes.

Once a bird is marked, it becomes an individual and much more information can
be obtained than just observing "random" members of the species:

Longevity, life history - annual breeding success, feeding preferences,
behaviour, etc, etc. I'm sure you get the picture.


> I guess I just have a feeling that to do ANYTHING artificial to a wild bird
> or animal, you should have a darn good reason, and be fully prepared to
> follow through and make good use of the data (with a study plan, hypotheses
> you're testing, publishing results, etc).

Exactly.


> I've always wondered about researchers who attach things to animals. How do
> we know this does not make them more visible to predators or somehow change
> the way these animals are treated by other members of their own species?

I'd be lying if I said it doesn't have an effect. Putting a radio tranmitter
on a "small" bird does increase it's likelihood of being predated. Whether
this is because the transmitter is affecting the bird or because it makes it
different and hence attracts the predators attention.

The technology is nowhere near perfect. It is useful for large birds, small
birds, I'm afraid not -small in my opinion is anything less than 200g. However
it produces really high quality data - less birds need marking, etc, etc.

> This is NOT meant as a flame on banders - I'm really just asking questions
> here, I am not anti-research (see last posting). For all I know, these
> folks *have* detailed plans and organizations that will effectively use the
> data.


Flaming banders and scientists is probably a good thing. Striving for
excellence makes sure the job is well done. Good methodology will produce good
results. Sloppy methods produce sloppy results and when wild birds are
concerned they become the loosers.

> But Stuart, in response to the question that was posted, you stated that you
> thought it was a good thing as long as done carefully, but you never did say
> WHY it was a good thing or what useful information would be gained from
> banding ducks.


I don't know about the study. The obvious answer would be to see how many
birds are getting killed by hunters and where they are migrating, wintering,
etc. The recovery rate for banded birds in western Europe is roughly 15% - and
that is the ones which get reported !!!!


> Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

I haven't even scratched the surface on this subject.


Stuart "Phew I'm exhausted" MacKay