DOCSLIB.ORG

A Best Practice Guide for Monitoring Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Best Practice Guide for Monitoring Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds A best practice guide for monitoring illegal killing and taking of birds 1 Executive Summary Overexploitation is one of the main threats driving birds towards extinction globally, and much of this is illegal. Illegal activities are by definition hidden and difficult to track, and consequently most estimates of the numbers of birds illegally killed or taken are currently based on inference from fragmentary data, informed by expert knowledge. Monitoring of illegal killing and taking of birds using standardised, replicable methods is needed to generate robust quantitative data to help focus efforts, track trends and monitor the effectiveness of actions to address illegal killing. Detailed guidance is widely available on methods for monitoring bird population abundance, but little information is available on methods to monitor illegal killing and taking of birds. Such monitoring requires use of appropriate sampling design and methodology, recruitment and maintenance of a network of individuals to collect the data, involvement of relevant stakeholders, appropriate consideration of security issues, appropriate data management, analysis, presentation and communication, and many other elements. The aim of this best practice guide is to provide BirdLife Partners and other stakeholders with guidance covering these different aspects. The principle elements of each aspect of a monitoring scheme are summarised in the main chapters, illustrated by a series of case studies describing different approaches applied in selected countries. Citation BirdLife International (2015) A best practice guide for monitoring illegal killing and taking of birds. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/708 Front cover picture: Illegal mist-netting of birds in Cyprus© BirdLife Cyprus For further information about the content of these guidelines, please contact: Vicky Jones – Senior Flyways Officer - [email protected] Claire Thompson – Conservation Programme Officer - [email protected] Willem Van Den Bossche – European Flyways officer - [email protected] 2 3 Acknowledgements This publication draws on the experience of the BirdLife Partnership in the Mediterranean region (and additionally Georgia), and valuable experience shared by a range of international collaborators: Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), European Federation of Associations for Hunting & Conservation (FACE), European Union network for the implementation and enforcement of environmental law (IMPEL) and EuroNatur. An early draft was reviewed and developed by attendees at a workshop held in Spain in February 2015. We are grateful to the following individuals for their contributions: A.R. Al-Hmoud (Royal Society for Conservation of Nature), N.G. Asswad (Syrian Society for Conservation of Wildlife), J.C. Atienza (Sociedad Española de Ornitología), I. Atrash (Palestine Wildlife Society), P. Becka (EuroNatur), C. Celada (Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli), I. Cherkaoui (Groupe de Recherche pour la Protection des Oiseaux au Maroc), J. Costa (Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds), D. de la Bodega (Sociedad Española de Ornitología), D. de los Ríos (Batumi Raptor Count), S. Dereliev (AEWA), E. Eid (Royal Marine Conservation Society of Jordan), S. Elhalawani (BirdLife International), B. Elliot (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), C. Feltrup-Azafzaf (Association "Les Amis des Oiseaux"), J. Fernández-Orueta (Sociedad Española de Ornitología), R. Gregory (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), C. Griffin (FACE), B. Heredia (CMS), M. Horváth (Magyar Madártani és Természetvédelmi Egyesület), J. Jansen (Batumi Raptor Count), S. Jbour (BirdLife Middle East), V. Jones (BirdLife International), M. Kaczynska (Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP)/BirdLife Poland), P. Kmecl (DOPPS), M. Korbeti (Hellenic Ornithological), L. Lachmann (Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union), N. López-Jiménez (Sociedad Española de Ornitología), U. Lötberg (Swedish Ornithological Society), V. Lucić (BIOM association), T. Mikuska (Croatian Society for Nature and Bird Protection), N.A. Noor (Nature Conservation Egypt), N. Piludu (BirdLife Malta), K. Putilin (Macedonian Ecological Society), G. Quaintenne (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux), G. Ramadan-Jaradi (Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon), M. Ruzic (Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia), A. Sandor (Georgian Society for Nature Conservation (SABUKO), N. Sarajlic (Naše ptice (Bosnia and Herzegovina)), D. Saveljić (Center for Protection and Research of birds of Montenegro), B. Sevo (Albanian Ornithological Society), T. Shialis (BirdLife Cyprus), C. Thompson (BirdLife International), A. Tribe (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), W. Van Den Bossche (BirdLife Europe and Central Asia), J. Visbeen (IMPEL) and S. Wotton (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). The Guide was compiled and edited by Anne-Laure Brochet. It was developed through a project reviewing the scale, impact and geography of illegal killing and taking of birds across the Mediterranean region, generously supported by a BirdLife anonymous Donor. 4 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 2 Citation .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. Aim of the Best Practice Guide ................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Defining illegal killing and taking of birds and the need for monitoring ................................. 7 1.3. Overarching considerations for schemes that monitor the illegal killing and taking of birds 8 2. Survey design .................................................................................................................................11 2.1. Monitoring goal and objectives ............................................................................................. 12 2.2. Direct or indirect measures? ................................................................................................. 12 2.3. Survey boundaries ................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Census or sample? ................................................................................................................. 13 2.5. Sampling strategy .................................................................................................................. 13 2.6. Field methods ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.7. Reliability: accuracy, precision and bias ................................................................................ 18 2.8. Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 18 3. Implementation on the ground .....................................................................................................20 3.1. Recruiting surveyors and maintaining involvement .............................................................. 20 3.2. Training surveyors ................................................................................................................. 21 3.3. Security .................................................................................................................................. 22 3.4. Supporting materials ............................................................................................................. 23 4. Collecting data on illegal killing and taking of birds ......................................................................26 4.1. Direct or indirect measures? ................................................................................................. 26 4.2. ‘Visible’ or ‘undercover’ monitoring ..................................................................................... 27 4.3. Monitoring illegal shooting of birds ...................................................................................... 27 4.4. Monitoring illegal trapping of birds....................................................................................... 32 4.5. Monitoring illegal poisoning of birds .................................................................................... 35 4.6. Monitoring the illegal bird market trade .............................................................................. 39 4.7. Monitoring illegal activities through socioeconomic study .................................................. 41 4.8. Recording casual data on illegal killing from different sources ............................................ 46 5. Analysing and managing information on illegal killing and taking of birds ...................................48 5.1. Data management ................................................................................................................. 48 5.2. Data analysis .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • And Wildlife, 1928-72
    Bibliography of Research Publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE PUBLICATION 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 Edited by Paul H. Eschmeyer, Division of Fishery Research Van T. Harris, Division of Wildlife Research Resource Publication 120 Published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Washington, B.C. 1974 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Eschmeyer, Paul Henry, 1916 Bibliography of research publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72. (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Kesource publication 120) Supt. of Docs. no.: 1.49.66:120 1. Fishes Bibliography. 2. Game and game-birds Bibliography. 3. Fish-culture Bibliography. 4. Fishery management Bibliogra­ phy. 5. Wildlife management Bibliography. I. Harris, Van Thomas, 1915- joint author. II. United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. III. Title. IV. Series: United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource publication 120. S914.A3 no. 120 [Z7996.F5] 639'.9'08s [016.639*9] 74-8411 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTie Washington, D.C. Price $2.30 Stock Number 2410-00366 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 INTRODUCTION This bibliography comprises publications in fishery and wildlife research au­ thored or coauthored by research scientists of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and certain predecessor agencies. Separate lists, arranged alphabetically by author, are given for each of 17 fishery research and 6 wildlife research labora­ tories, stations, investigations, or centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Monitoring of Night-Migrating Birds: a Progress Report
    Acoustic Monitoring of Night-Migrating Birds: A Progress Report William R. Evans Kenneth V. Rosenberg Abstract—This paper discusses an emerging methodology that to give regular vocalizations in night migration are the vireos uses electronic technology to monitor vocalizations of night-migrat- (Vireonidae), flycatchers (Tyrannidae), and orioles (Icterinae). ing birds. On a good migration night in eastern North America, If a monitoring protocol is consistently maintained, an array thousands of call notes may be recorded from a single ground-based, of microphone stations can provide information on how the audio-recording station, and an array of recording stations across a species composition and number of vocal migrants vary across region may serve as a “recording net” to monitor a broad front of time and space. Such data have application for monitoring migration. Data from pilot studies in Florida, Texas, New York, and avian populations and identifying their migration routes. In British Columbia illustrate the potential of this technique to gather addition, detection and classification of distinctive call-types information that cannot be gathered by more conventional methods, is possible with computers (Mills 1995; Taylor 1995), thus such as mist-netting or diurnal counts. For example, the Texas information on bird populations might be gained automati- station detected a major migration of grassland sparrows, and a cally. In this paper, we summarize the current state of station in British Columbia detected hundreds of Swainson’s knowledge for identifying night-flight calls to species; present Thrushes; both phenomena were not detected with ground monitor- selected results from four ongoing studies that are monitoring ing efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research
    THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL Providing Scientific Information about Birds GUIDELINES TO THE USE OF WILD BIRDS IN RESEARCH Special Publication 1997 Edited by Abbot S. Gaunt & Lewis W. Oring Third Edition 2010 Edited by Jeanne M. Fair, Editor-in-Chief Ellen Paul & Jason Jones, Associate Editors GUIDELINES TO THE USE OF WILD BIRDS IN RESEARCH Jeanne M. Fair1, Ellen Paul2, & Jason Jones3, Anne Barrett Clark4, Clara Davie4, Gary Kaiser5 1 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Atmospheric, Climate and Environmental Dynamics, MS J495, Los Alamos, NM 87506 2 Ornithological Council, 1107 17th St., N.W., Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20036 3 Tetra Tech EC, 133 Federal Street, 6th floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 4 Binghamton University State University of New York, Department of Biology, PO BOX 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 5 402-3255 Glasgow Ave, Victoria, BC V8X 4S4, Canada Copyright 1997, 2010 by THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL 1107 17th Street, N.W. Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20036 http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET Suggested citation Fair, J., E. Paul, and J. Jones, Eds. 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. Washington, D.C.: Ornithological Council. Revision date August 2010 2 Dedication The Ornithological Council dedicates this 2010 revision to Lewis W. Oring and the late Abbot (Toby) S. Gaunt, whose commitment to the well-being of the birds for whom ornithologists share a deep and abiding concern has served our profession well for so many years. Toby Gaunt Lew Oring Revision date August 2010 3 Acknowledgments and disclaimer Third edition The Ornithological Council thanks the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health for their financial support for the production of this revision.
    [Show full text]
  • The All-Bird Bulletin
    Advancing Integrated Bird Conservation in North America Spring 2014 Inside this issue: The All-Bird Bulletin Protecting Habitat for 4 the Buff-breasted Sandpiper in Bolivia The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Conserving the “Jewels 6 Act (NMBCA): Thirteen Years of Hemispheric in the Crown” for Neotropical Migrants Bird Conservation Guy Foulks, Program Coordinator, Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, U.S. Fish and Bird Conservation in 8 Wildlife Service (USFWS) Costa Rica’s Agricultural Matrix In 2000, responding to alarming declines in many Neotropical migratory bird popu- Uruguayan Rice Fields 10 lations due to habitat loss and degradation, Congress passed the Neotropical Migra- as Wintering Habitat for tory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA). The legislation created a unique funding Neotropical Shorebirds source to foster the cooperative conservation needed to sustain these species through all stages of their life cycles, which occur throughout the Western Hemi- Conserving Antigua’s 12 sphere. Since its first year of appropriations in 2002, the NMBCA has become in- Most Critical Bird strumental to migratory bird conservation Habitat in the Americas. Neotropical Migratory 14 Bird Conservation in the The mission of the North American Bird Heart of South America Conservation Initiative is to ensure that populations and habitats of North Ameri- Aros/Yaqui River Habi- 16 ca's birds are protected, restored, and en- tat Conservation hanced through coordinated efforts at in- ternational, national, regional, and local Strategic Conservation 18 levels, guided by sound science and effec- in the Appalachians of tive management. The NMBCA’s mission Southern Quebec is to achieve just this for over 380 Neo- tropical migratory bird species by provid- ...and more! Cerulean Warbler, a Neotropical migrant, is a ing conservation support within and be- USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern and listed as yond North America—to Latin America Vulnerable on the International Union for Conser- Coordination and editorial vation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wood-Concrete Nest Box to Study Burrow-Nesting Petrels
    Bedolla-Guzmán et al.: Wood-concrete nest boxes to study petrels 249 A WOOD-CONCRETE NEST BOX TO STUDY BURROW-NESTING PETRELS YULIANA BEDOLLA-GUZMÁN1,2, JUAN F. MASELLO1, ALFONSO AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ2 & PETRA QUILLFELDT1 1Department of Animal Ecology and Systematics, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 38, 35392 Giessen, Germany 2Grupo de Ecología y Conservación de Islas, A.C., Moctezuma 836, Zona Centro, 22800, Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico ([email protected]) Received 6 July 2016, accepted 31 August 2016 Artificial nests have been a useful research and conservation tool is an extended period of bi-parental care, and parents return to feed for a variety of petrel species (Podolsky & Kress 1989, Priddel & the chick only at night (Brooke 2004). Carlile 1995, De León & Mínguez 2003, Bolton et al. 2004). They facilitate observation and provide easy access, reducing overall At San Benito West Island, 140 artificial wooden nests were disturbance to seabirds (Wilson 1986, Priddel & Carlile 1995) deployed by previous researchers, beginning in 1999, to study the and increasing data-collection efficiency (Wilson 1986). Likewise, breeding biology of Cassin’s Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus. restoration programs using artificial nests have improved the Auklets readily accepted and used the nest boxes. In the first year, number of potential nest sites, breeding success (Priddel & Carlile the occupancy rate was 30%, increasing to 80% in the fifth year 1995, De León & Mínguez 2003, Bolton et al. 2004, Bried et al. (Shaye Wolf, pers. comm.). At San Benito, auklets breed earlier 2009, McIver et al. 2016) and adult survival rates (Libois et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Density and Success of Columbids in Puerto Rico ’
    The Condor98:1OC-113 0 The CooperOrnithological Society 1996 NEST DENSITY AND SUCCESS OF COLUMBIDS IN PUERTO RICO ’ FRANK F. RIVERA-MILAN~ Department ofNatural Resources,Scientific Research Area, TerrestrialEcology Section, Stop 3 Puerta. de Tierra, 00906, Puerto Rico Abstract. A total of 868 active nests of eight speciesof pigeonsand doves (columbids) were found in 210 0.1 ha strip-transectssampled in the three major life zones of Puerto Rico from February 1987 to June 1992. The columbids had a peak in nest density in May and June, with a decline during the July to October flocking period, and an increasefrom November to April. Predation accountedfor 8 1% of the nest lossesobserved from 1989 to 1992. Nest cover was the most important microhabitat variable accountingfor nest failure or successaccording to univariate and multivariate comparisons. The daily survival rate estimates of nests constructed on epiphytes were significantly higher than those of nests constructedon the bare branchesof trees. Rainfall of the first six months of the year during the study accounted for 67% and 71% of the variability associatedwith the nest density estimatesof the columbids during the reproductivepeak in the xerophytic forest of Gulnica and dry coastal forest of Cabo Rojo, but only 9% of the variability of the nest density estimatesof the columbids in the moist montane second-growthforest patchesof Cidra. In 1988, the abundance of fruits of key tree species(nine speciescombined) was positively correlatedwith the seasonalchanges in nest density of the columbids in the strip-transects of Cayey and Cidra. Pairwise density correlationsamong the columbids suggestedparallel responsesof nestingpopulations to similar or covarying resourcesin the life zones of Puerto Rico.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EVALUATION of TECHNIQUES for CAPTURING RAPTORS in EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R
    AN EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES FOR CAPTURING RAPTORS IN EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R. Fuller and Glenn S. Christenson Department of Ecologyand BehavioralBiology University of Minnesota 310 Biological SciencesCenter St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 ABSTRACT. To meet the objectivesof a study,several species of raptorshad to be trapped on a 9,880-hectare study area of heterogenoushabitat types. Bal-chatri,mist net, Swedish Goshawk,and automatic bow-net traps (and combinationsof these traps) were used in severalgeneral habitat situations.Mist nets combined with a baited bal-chatri or tethered bait were most successfulin capturingbirds, and the bal-chatrisalone and mist nets alone were next most effective. Trappingwas found to be most productivein deciduousupland habitats where an openingin the canopy or break in the understoryoccurred. Trapping along a woodlot-fieldedge was also effective. Strigiformeswere most often trappedjust before sunriseor just after sunset,while falconiformeswere most often capturedin the late morning and late afternoon. Trapping was least efficient from Decemberto February. A different trap type from that i•sedin the initial captureis often most effectivefor recaptur- ing raptors.Maintenance of healthybait animalsand frequent trap checksare emphasized. Introduction This paperpresents results from a combinationof methodsused to captureand recapture Great HornedOwls (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls (Strix varia),Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo }amaicensis),and Broad-wingedHawks (Buteo platypterus) on a 9,880-hectarestudy area in east-central
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY OPTIONS for MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3
    CONVENTION ON MIGRATORY SPECIES POLICY OPTIONS FOR MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3 Colin A Galbraith March 2011 CMS Contract No 14550 and additional staff time from Colin Galbraith Environment Limited Policy Options for Migratory Bird Flyways CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3 CONTENTS PAGE Executive summary 3 Introduction 14 1.1 Background and approach used 14 The major flyways 15 2.1 Flyways 15 2.2 The status of species on flyways 20 Coverage of existing CMS and non CMS instruments and frameworks 22 3.1 Summary of existing agreements 22 3.2 Gaps in geographical coverage 22 3.3 Coverage of species groups 23 3.4 Priorities to fill the gaps in coverage 24 The key pressures impacting on migratory birds 25 4.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and reduction in quality 26 4.2 Climate change 28 4.3 By-catch 30 4.4 Unsustainable use 32 4.5 Lead shot and other poisons 35 4.6 Invasive alien species 36 4.7 Agricultural conflicts and pest control 37 4.8 Disease 38 4.9 Information gaps 39 2 Priorities for the development of CMS instruments to cover flyways 40 5.1 The role of CMS 40 5.2 Geographical priorities 41 5.3 Species priorities 46 Options for CMS instruments for migratory bird conservation 49 6.1 High level policy options 50 6.2 Developing a new approach 51 6.3 Identification of priorities and a plan for action 55 6.4 Mechanisms for action 59 6.5 Issues of profile 61 6.6 Practicalities 61 Annex 1 Timetable for major forthcoming meetings 64 Annex 2 Threatened waterbirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway 67 Annex 3
    [Show full text]
  • Europe's Huntable Birds a Review of Status and Conservation Priorities
    FACE - EUROPEAN FEDERATIONEurope’s FOR Huntable HUNTING Birds A Review AND CONSERVATIONof Status and Conservation Priorities Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities December 2020 1 European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE) Established in 1977, FACE represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters, as an international non-profit-making non-governmental organisation. Its members are comprised of the national hunters’ associations from 37 European countries including the EU-27. FACE upholds the principle of sustainable use and in this regard its members have a deep interest in the conservation and improvement of the quality of the European environment. See: www.face.eu Reference Sibille S., Griffin, C. and Scallan, D. (2020) Europe’s Huntable Birds: A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE). https://www.face.eu/ 2 Europe’s Huntable Birds A Review of Status and Conservation Priorities Executive summary Context Non-Annex species show the highest proportion of ‘secure’ status and the lowest of ‘threatened’ status. Taking all wild birds into account, The EU State of Nature report (2020) provides results of the national the situation has deteriorated from the 2008-2012 to the 2013-2018 reporting under the Birds and Habitats directives (2013 to 2018), and a assessments. wider assessment of Europe’s biodiversity. For FACE, the findings are of key importance as they provide a timely health check on the status of In the State of Nature report (2020), ‘agriculture’ is the most frequently huntable birds listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Filed Techniques-Bats
    Expedition Field Techniques BATS Kate Barlow Geography Outdoors: the centre supporting field research, exploration and outdoor learning Royal Geographical Society with IBG 1 Kensington Gore London SW7 2AR Tel +44 (0)20 7591 3030 Fax +44 (0)20 7591 3031 Email [email protected] Website www.rgs.org/go October 1999 ISBN 978-0-907649-82-3 Cover illustration: A Noctilio leporinus mist-netted during an expedition, FFI Montserrat Biodiversity Project 1995, by Dave Fawcett. Courtesy of Kate Jones, and taken from the cover of her thesis entitled ‘Evolution of bat life histories’, University of Surrey. Expedition Field Techniques BATS CONTENTS Acknowledgements Preface Section One: Bats and Fieldwork 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Literature Reviews 3 1.3 Licences 3 1.4 Health and Safety 4 1.4.1 Hazards associated with bats 5 1.5 Ethics 6 1.6 Project Planning 6 Section Two: Capture Techniques 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 Catching bats 8 2.2.1 Mist-nets 8 2.2.2 Mist-net placement 10 2.2.3 Harp-traps 12 2.2.4 Harp-trap placement 13 2.2.5 Comparison of mist-net and harp-traps 13 2.2.6 Hand-netting for bats 14 2.3 Sampling for bats 14 Section Three: Survey Techniques 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.2 Surveys at roosts 18 3.2.1 Emergence counts 18 3.2.2 Roost counts 19 3.3 Population estimates 20 Expedition Field Techniques Section Four: Processing Bats 22 4.1 Handling bats 22 4.1.1 Removing bats from mist-nets 22 4.1.2 Handling bats 24 4.2 Assessment of age and reproductive status 25 4.3 Measuring bats 26 4.4 Identification 28 4.5 Data recording 29 Section Five: Specimen Preparation
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Capture and Marking
    CHAPTER 3. CAPTURE AND MARKING A. Overview Scientific studies of birds often require that birds be captured to gather morphometric data and to collect samples for pathological, genetic, and biogeochemical analysis. These data and samples can be used to understand evolutionary relationships, genetics, population structure and dynamics, comparative anatomy and physiology, adaptation, behavior, parasites and diseases, geographic distributions, migration, and the general ecology of wild populations of birds. This knowledge informs us about avian biology and natural history and is necessary to effect science-based conservation and management policies for game and non-game species, endangered species, economically important species, and bird habitat conservation (White and Garrott 1990). Capture is generally necessary to mark birds, which allows scientists to investigate demography, migration/movement patterns, or identify specific individuals after release (Day et al. 1980). Many techniques have been developed to capture and mark birds (Nietfeld et al. 1994; Bub 1995). The assumption that marking does not affect the birds is critical because it is the basis for generalizing the data to unmarked birds (Murray and Fuller 2000). The purpose of this section is not to describe capture and marking techniques, but instead to discuss the effects that different capture and marking techniques have on a bird’s short- and long-term physiological well-being and survival. The more commonly used methods are covered and described briefly, but the focus is on the potential impacts of the method. Thus, even if a particular method is not covered, the researcher is alerted to concerns that may arise and questions to be considered in refining methods so as to reduce impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • NFBB Vol. 32 1957
    Howard L. Cogswell, Mills College, Oakland, Calif. Russel H. Pray, 662 Santa Rosa Ave., Berkeley, Calif. William K. Kirsher, .571 Fulton Ave., Sacramento, Calif. Lillian Henningson, 124 Cambridge Way, Piedmont, Calif. Address contributions for the N~VS to William K. Kirsher, F~itor-- .571 Fulton Avenue Sacramento 2.5, California PAGE EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND FOUR CLIFF SWALLOWS by William K. Kirsher. 1 MIST NETS LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. • . 4 MIST NET SUPPLIERS . • . • . • . 6 GULL BANDING IN THE KI~~TH by Carl Richardson • 7 NEVlS FROM TIIEBANDERS. 9 CHAPTER NOTES. • • • . • . • . • 10 EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND FOUR CLIFF SWALLOWS b:{William K. Kirsher In the flat agricultural lands around Sacramento, California where in prlml- tive times Cliff swallows (petrochelidon p;trrhonota) must have been hard put to find nesting sites, today there are man-made structures that admirably fill the bird's needs for sheltered, elevated purchases for their mud nests. The species now populates the valley abundantly. Colonies are often found in culverts and under small bridges, some no higher than a man's head. In these, by working at night when all the birds are at the nest, practically the whole colony can be trapped by simultaneously closing both openings of the structure with large fish nets. Most of the m,allows flush at the first disturbance, fluttering to the nets where they are easily captured by hand. There are always a few reluctant ones that have to be flushed by shining a bright light (which the bander wears on his forehead) into the nest as he claps his hands and makes hissing sounds and other noises.
    [Show full text]