Neck Banding Birds

Each time I see a clunky looking neck band on a bird I get upset. While it is admittedly an emotional reaction, I wonder if someone browsing this forum may educate me as to why this is the preferred method of banding for some birds and how we can know for sure that this is not uncomfortable or stressful to the birds.

Part of me frowns at the capture and banding of birds by any method, though I have friends that have participated in this activity for many years. I understand some of the educational benefits of banding and tracking birds but, sometimes, I also can't help but wonder what gives us the right to do it.

I am not posting this for the purpose of a rant, but rather sincerely with an open mind to learn something that I know very little about.

Greg,

I don't know the answer to this question but will get an opinion for you. I'm currently working with the SF Bay Bird Observatory photographing their banding process for them (aong with getting portraits of the variety of species they get). I've forwarded your question to the two biologists that I'm working with to see what they have to say. I'll post again when I hear back from them.

Scott

Can't answer your question, but I'd like to share a wonderful quote from Galen Rowell's Inner Vision: "One outspoken bear biologist told me with a grin that every time he darts a bear he imagines himself darting a photographer. I replied that every time I see an ear tag on a bear . . . I imagine myself putting one on a biologist."

I know the really large neckband's used on geese are so that individuals can be identified in flight to study migration routes. I too hate seeing birds like that and can't imagine that it isn't a discomfort for those birds that have them.

Do you have a better suggestion for placing the band on a duck or goose so that it can be easily read at a distance by a field biologist? I don't. I bet after a while they get use to it, though I'm sure at first its a little uncomfortable.
Matt

Greg,

I know that leg bands are the prefered type of band used on birds. While I'm not certain about birds, i do know that the neck bands used on mammals are designed to be temporary and fall off at the end of the season. In most cases, a neck colar is used because the colar contains radio telemetry equipment rather then just being used for ID purposes. The added weight of the equipment is better supported by the neck then the leg.

I recently read quite a bit on this as I followed a news group item discussing the neck bands on larger birds such as Geese, Swans, and some larger ducks. The particular item discussed and sampled actual harm to the species that was banded. Just type "Neck Bands on Birds" in Goggle and you will see this is definitely a subject to be spoken about.

Both sides of the question are discussed and banding of this type is used in many countries.

IMHO and only in MHO I think the neck band is easy, CHEAP, and no one is protesting against the use of them so they are used.

I am not against the study of birds and like others have good friends in the field doing some very good work but I would think that in this day of age and new technologies we could make a better band. The information of banding and tagging programs has assisted us in the management of many of the areas we now have designated as wildlife reserves and parks. For this I am grateful.

I do not believe that the birds gets used to it but is destined to live with it.

I will quite now as I will type too much at a further point.

I have personally worked with the Canadian Wildlife Service ( as a contract photographer). On one job I was supposed to document on film a loon study where we spent 3 days in the back country of a national park. Of course, I had certain expectations about the whole thing, and having always been and still am a bird lover, I also had some reservations. The study was, in hindsight, a rather cruel one. We would travel by canoe at night and "jack" the loons with a high powered spotlight. The birds would instantly freeze, allowed the eletric trolling motor driven canoe to come alongside the stunned bird. One of the biologists would then scoop the bird into a huge net and drag it into the canoe. Sometimes the birds struggled, sometimes not (we caught a total of 5). Then they would be taken ashore (remember middle ofthe night) and a leg-band was placed and blood, tissue, and feather samples taken. Once I saw this the first time, I really hated it and it only seemed to get worse with each one caught. One thing I can still feel in my heart: one of the loons, in a large sac used to subdue them, began to yodel call, and call, and call. This affected me greatly, but I was only the photographer. After three days of this I was glad it was over. Not only did I find the techniques rather rough, I was also upset with a quite crass attitude of the researchers, especially the chief scientist, a toxicologist from Montreal. (I SUSPECT IF THE PROJECT WERE BEING CARRIED OUT BY ORNITHOLOGISTS AND NOT TOXICOLOGISTS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY).

I also witnessed a rather horrible thing happen at Cap Tourmente, Quebec (a goose migration stopover). The scientists were capturing Lesser Snow Geese by firing a rocket propelled net over the grazing birds. On one attempt one of the rockets struck a couple of birds in mid air, killing them instantly.

I strongly believe that research must be done, and that there are ornithologists and biologists who are passionate about birds and their welfare. I also believe that invasive research, where animals are captured and sometimes traumatized (as unintentional as it might be) should be strictly limited and used only where there isn't a safer alternative for the bird. Bird banding, I believe, in general is done with a great deal of respect for the individual animals, by people who really care. But, as I've experienced twice, this isn't always the case.
Scott

scottleslie wrote: <snip> Once I saw this the first time, I really hated it and it only seemed to get worse with each one caught. One thing I can still feel in my heart: one of the loons, in a large sac used to subdue them, began to yodel call, and call, and call. This affected me greatly, but I was only the photographer. After three days of this I was glad it was over. Not only did I find the techniques rather rough, I was also upset with a quite crass attitude of the researchers, especially the chief <snip> Scott

I think it's important for those who do this work to step back now and then and hear what it looks like to others. Frankly I don't find your description upsetting, and other than the killed geese (who at least did not suffer, which is something you can't say for those that fall in response to the hunter's shotgun) no more traumatic than, say, vaccinating a child or a puppy. They don't like it, it's for their own good or that of the general population; done well it is over quickly and the animal can get on with its life. But I can fully understand how it might appear to an observer.

Not that long ago ornithologists did research on birds they killed for that purpose. The last two know ivory-billed woodpeckers were killed to prove they existed. Fortunately, that is no longer the normal practice.

There is no way to know how a goose feels about having a band around its neck. I'm not aware that any long-term change in their behavior has been observed as a result of the band's presence, but I'm not sure I would be aware of it. Dogs wear collars, horses wear halters, humans wear clothes & jewelry, sometimes permanent jewelry, and after awhile they no longer feel them. It stands to reason that geese can too.

I'm not a biologist, just a veterinarian with an interest.

As an Ornithology student, passionated Nature photographer (of course!), and, 1st of all, deep wildlife-lover, I just can say that any way of banding animals, though possibly stressing for some specimens (Note that the new techniques are almost always the less impacting possible, and that the aspect of animal welfare in the research has been sometimes exagerated by the public...), can offer a whealth of informations to the scientists and the conservationsts. Knowing, for example, the migration route of a rare species of goose, by studying recoveries in different areas from where it has been banded, gives us the elements to understand more its biology, its ecological needs and, sometimes, to decide where estabilish protected areas. Here, in Europe, wildlife photographers too contribute with their pictures in identifying individuals (e.g., reading their neck-band code from the slides) to determine movements and behaviours of the animals.
I agree that a goose with a collar, or a flamingo with a big plastic ring on the leg, are not nice views or good subjects for our shots, but I'm sure that we can learn so many things from those "unlucky" individuals...These informations could help us to know better them and, so on, take best pictures in the future, with the common aim (I hope...) of protecting and defending our winged friends.....

Sorry for my English

Bests to everyone!

Here's a copy of a post I made to a remarkable picture by Bill Whala. I have no first hand experience, but found these articles enlightening.

Here is an article from the US Geological Survey (go figure!) about auxillary markers, including this very uncomfortable looking type. It also has a number for reporting a sighting. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBL/homepage/aboutaux.htm

Here is an article from a professor at Univ of Minn saying the band does no harm.
http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2 ... 20347.html

Paul

A friend of mine works for the humane society in Milwaukee and gets calls during the winter season for geese that can't fly or pick there heads up because the band around their necks is frozen with big chunks of ice from when there in the water. Wonder how many die a slow death.

I debated about weighing in on this subject, since there is a lot of subjectivity to the topic, not to mention anthropomorphizing the animals. In the end, I decided it is worth the discussion. For three summers, I participated in the summer phase of a major North American study of Canada Geese, specifically designed to detect and monitor the nesting and breeding dynamics of the geese that winter here in southern Illinois. This project was jointly undrwritten by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Illinois Department of Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife; an unusual camaraderie of organiztions. Geese would be trapped during the winter here in southern Illinois, and among other things, sexed to determine gender. Knowing that the goose determines the nesting location, selected geese would be outfitted with radio transmitters (a harness-like affair wherein the transmitter is held on the goose's back). During the nesting season, for three years, I flew with a team of conservationists to northern Ontario: James Bay from Akiminski Island, inland approximately 500 miles, North around Cape Henrietta Marie to Hudson Bay and West to York Factory, usually based out of the old RCAF Mid-continent base at Winisk (newer versions of this study - still ongoing - use satelites and GPS data to pinpoint the nesting birds, sacraficing direct observation of nesting conditions for cost-savings), covering bout 40,000 square miles of territory per summer. The data we obtained, coupled with observations and data from ground teams inserted in areas wherein we pinpointed birds' nesting, were invaluable in determining population dynamics which are used for a wide variety of purposes: from setting Native American hunting rights, to establishing population norms for habitat, to setting hunting seasons which have their basis in nesting mortality, not simply the number of birds attempting to migrate. Compared to the "old fashioned" way of collecting data from bird bands after birds were shot, or worse yet -- attempting to manage goose populations without taking nesting conditions and success into the equation; it is as night and day. The Canada Goose is the major success story of the North American conservation movement, and it is the model for all other management undertakings.

In the winter, we use the neck bands for populations studies, again without inflicting (further?) harm to the animal. The color of the band is used to determine sub-populations and/or year banded, whereas the easily visualized alphanumeric information pinpoints a bird's history, age, gender, etc. Being able to view this information with a spotting scope or pair of binoculars from the comfort of a blind or heated car in sub-freezing temperatures beats the socks off the alternatives: live-trapping the bird with netting, or worse, depending upon band returns from birds that have been harvested by hunters.

To change species, the university here has a huge deer population on its property (where hunting is not permitted) and the Cooperative Wildlife Laboratory continually monitors the health of the herd so as to determine the population which may be safely maintained given the amount of habitat available. This information is forming the basis for new studies into a new threat to North American ungulates: chronic wasting disease. In the evenings, I often venture forth around twilight with camera in hand to photograph deer. Recently I made a remarkable photograph of a doe; remarkable in that she had been tagged with a radio collar 13-14 years previously. The radio had ceased to function, and - for whatever reason - the collar had failed in its designed disintegration - and my photogrph funished visible evidence that she is still healthy (and procduced twins this past year). While this is not necessarily a "record" for a tagged deer, it is evidence of a sound plan to manage the deer herd such that it will not destroy the (shrinking) habitat available for its support.

I should note that I am not a professional wildlife biologist; I maintain an avocational interest in wildlife (in additional to photographing same) and I volunteer my time, taking vacation to enable me to join the teams in the field. I have consummate respect for the professionals who maintain and protect our natural resources. With those resources under constant attack from shrinking habitat, I fully support whatever means it takes to provide the managers with the means to continue their efforts on our behalf. In this light, I have no reservations about population studies which use neck bands, radio collars, and the like. The information they enable us to obtain cannot be gained in a more humane way.

Greg -

The practice of banding birds for the purpose of wildlife management has many supporters and detractors. The supports say it is a way to monitor populations, including migrants. The detractors say that the return on leg bands is miniscule and not worth the effort. The researchers get paid for carrying out their studies with grant money or taxpayers money. The birders see cases of this form of human intervention that have gone bad, sometimes ending in slow death. The photographers complain about the unnatural look of the subject in their photos. The researchers complain about the photographers getting too close to their study subjects.

In my experience I have photographed birds with as many as seven leg bands. I have photographed endangered species with leg bands that were pinching their leg to the point that the leg was no longer being used. I have seen endangered birds that were sprayed with brightly colored dye so that researchers could prove where they were feeding.

That bird with seven leg bands was a semi-palmated sandpiper. I sent a small J-PEG of the photo to the research coordinators and asked for info about the wheres and whens of that bird. A year later (this past August) I shot another SESA with similar bands and sent the pics with the clearly visible color coding to the coordinators, again asking for info. I have yet to hear the wheres and whens of either bird.

Is the stress worth it to the bird? Probably not. Is it worth the effort to the humans? On a population basis it may be, but at what expense to the individual bird? Keep in mind that wildlife managers work at population levels.

In response to Mr. Brewer's coments about the major NA success story with he management of Canada geese:
Wildlife managers during the 1950's, (I think), thought it would be a good way to get more geese for sport hunting if they trapped and released the largest race of CAGO, called the giant Canada goose. That was a very successful endeaver which made the originally migrant goose into a resident goose that no longer had the instinct to migrate. Today the giant CAGO is considered a major nuisance, a health risk and a threat to some natural ecosystems because of the sheer numbers of them (at least on the east coast). These resident geese don't belong here as breeders, but they don't migrate north because the living is great here with all the mowed grass and asthetic ponds that are around. They also don't have to face the dangers of migration, or as much of a threat from natural predators. The migrant geese that still come south in the winter are smaller and some of their populations are under stress from the pressures of being truely wild migrant geese.

This is one wildlife management success story that may be little too successful.

- Paul

Paul:

I will not argue the point about what has happened with the giant Canada Goose: special interests (and money associated with same) talks in some instances, and the story of the giant Canada goose is well-documented (if you think the situation is bad in the Atlantic Flyway, come to the Mississipi flyway or talk to the good folks in Denver where those geese are certified pests!). I haven't even mentioned the politically-hot topic of shortstopping: Louisiana hasn't had a hunting season for Canada geese in almost fifty years, because "their Canada geese" have been shortstopped further North in the Mississippi flyway (e.g., Illinois, Wisconsin, & Missouri). What I do make reference to is this: in the mid-1970's, population studies on "regular Canada geese" (brantus canadensis) were mainly based on aerial surveys; in fact, quotas for the hunting seasons in the flyways were based mainly on aerial surveys of the numbers of geese beginning migration. Guesstimates at best, and igoring some key ingredients to insuring a stable breeding population to sustain the species. The end result was a massive over-harvesting of the population by all concerns: Canada, Native American, and here in the USA. The total goose population plummeted and two flyways - the Mississippi and the Atlantic - were particularly hard hit, and the population of birds using those flyways decreased dramatically. Obviously there had to be a better answer. That's when the advanced studies, using the visible collars and radio-tracking were implemented, and the population studies concentrated on breeding populations instead of migrating populations. The rebuilding of the populations of geese using those flyways, in the face of increased environmental loss and hunting pressure, is the success story to which I make reference. Has the Canada goose population been "mis-managed" in some instances, to suit particular interests? The answer is yes -- remember that politics are involved wherever state and federal monies (in the USA; I cannot speak for Canada) are involved. And, wherever politics are involved, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

David -

Thanks for the info.
Here in CT the state agency is using the neck collars to identify resident geese, which in turn helps them set management goals and season dates so that the resident population gets most of the hunting pressure while the migrants are not hit as hard.

- Paul