Human Interference vs Interaction

[newchick]

Read through all of this, lots of discussion back and forth.

I'm thinking cameras are a learning tool.

Banding is necessary, as it helps trace the bird as to age, sex, etc.

Banding of other birds is done for the same reason.

Transmitters, sure it seems to be a good tracing tool, and I think this is a U of M study, but, doesn't seem to be very successful, due to the fact transmitters seem to be failing, or we haven't been able to trace the birds for a long term.

[The Peregrine Chick]

The developers have done some work inside since 2011 but not much.  The condos were suppose to be occupied by this point as I recall.  I do know they have fixed some of the roof leaking and they receptive to postponing their rooftop work until after the chicks had fledged ... just not the 2011 or 2012 chicks ... and not the 2013 chicks either.

Yup, I warned the researcher that we would probably not be able to catch the chicks, but Conservation asked us to make the trip and assess our chances on-site, just in case.  And we sat inside in lawn chairs watching the monitor to see if we could maybe catch Maya after her brothers had fledged since females tend to fledge a few days later than their male siblings.  Being smaller it was six of one, half dozen of another but it was worth taking the time to find out.  It's almost too bad we didn't manage to put one on her, we might have been able to suspect that she was in trouble/or might be in trouble so far away from home.  Or maybe just get to her sooner.

[Rose]

And just to correct a wee bit of revisionist history ...

Last year we were told that the west Winnipeg chicks were hacked because of their unsafe natal nest but in reality they were needed for a research project so transmitters could be put on them

In 2011 the West Winnipeg chick was moved from his unsafe nest site at banding age and when he was older was given a transmitter.  In 2012, the chicks could not be retrieved at banding age so they couldn't be moved to the same location as 2011 (they need 10 days at least to imprint on a new location) so when we were offered the opportunity to hack release the chicks outside the city we accepted.  It gave us the opportunity to move the chicks from their unsafe fledge site and it would give then 10 days to imprint before release.  They too were given transmitters before they fledged.  So long as we are unable to get the West Winnipeg pair to nest elsewhere, we will continue to try and move their chicks to improve their odds of fledging successfully.

The McKenzie chicks were taken out of their nest box the last two years and put on the roof floor so they could be easily caught and have transmitters put on them. We were told the first year that the developer wanted to do some work on the nest box wall and they would be safer on the floor but we find out a week or so later that the chicks would be getting some new blings (transmitters) and no work of any kind has been done on the building or the wall since. The first year the chicks were easily caught and wore transmitters but the transmitters went off line (one just after migration and the other the next spring) Last year the chicks on the floor were a little smarter and weren't caught.

In 2011 some reinforcing was to be conducted on the wall with the nestbox so we agreed to install a nestbox on the roof just in case the need arose to move the chicks.  When the McKenzie Seeds chicks were to be include in the transmitter research, it made sense to move the chicks to the roof at banding rather than try to retrieve them a second time from the wall nestbox where the potential for one or more of them to try to escape and injure themselves was much greater.  In 2012, the decision was made to use the same technique as it had worked well the previous year.  We were a couple of days later than in 2011 which at this stage in the chicks' development meant we had to to be prepared for the possibility that we wouldn't be able to catch the chicks because we didn't want to push them into fledging early.  So we watched the cams and waited for an opportunity and as soon as they hopped up on the wall, we knew we weren't going to be able to include them in the research that year.

Thank you for your  long and wordy correction of a wee bit of revisionist history but did the development company ever do any work on that wall( to your knowledge)? They certainly have not done any work since and all their plans have changed and everything is in limbo, apartments are now being considered. As for the chicks in 2012 you must have known they were up on the wall before you even came to Brandon. RCF posted pics on the forum(July12 reply #178).  July 13  Sol fledged when you opened the roof door and you and Dennis had to come down and look for him (the researcher and Allison from conservation stayed up on the roof and didn't help you look). RCF found him on the Annex safe and sound but knowing that you still went up to the roof and waited in the heat and humidity for another 3 hours hoping to catch Maya. While we, Dennis, RCF and I waited down below and watched Hunter playing on the wall.

[bccs]

well now, this is a wonderful debate going on right now.
I raised this question a year or so ago and really got no answer.

It appears that intervention is subjective.

Conservation  claims one mantra, but employs another.

Should we move the chicks? Loaded question. Who makes the decision to move them? Conservation or the project? On who's authority?

A lot of questions, too few hard and fast rules, too much ambiguity.

[The Peregrine Chick]

And just to correct a wee bit of revisionist history ...

Last year we were told that the west Winnipeg chicks were hacked because of their unsafe natal nest but in reality they were needed for a research project so transmitters could be put on them

In 2011 the West Winnipeg chick was moved from his unsafe nest site at banding age and when he was older was given a transmitter.  In 2012, the chicks could not be retrieved at banding age so they couldn't be moved to the same location as 2011 (they need 10 days at least to imprint on a new location) so when we were offered the opportunity to hack release the chicks outside the city we accepted.  It gave us the opportunity to move the chicks from their unsafe fledge site and it would give then 10 days to imprint before release.  They too were given transmitters before they fledged.  So long as we are unable to get the West Winnipeg pair to nest elsewhere, we will continue to try and move their chicks to improve their odds of fledging successfully.

The McKenzie chicks were taken out of their nest box the last two years and put on the roof floor so they could be easily caught and have transmitters put on them. We were told the first year that the developer wanted to do some work on the nest box wall and they would be safer on the floor but we find out a week or so later that the chicks would be getting some new blings (transmitters) and no work of any kind has been done on the building or the wall since. The first year the chicks were easily caught and wore transmitters but the transmitters went off line (one just after migration and the other the next spring) Last year the chicks on the floor were a little smarter and weren't caught.

In 2011 some reinforcing was to be conducted on the wall with the nestbox so we agreed to install a nestbox on the roof just in case the need arose to move the chicks.  When the McKenzie Seeds chicks were to be include in the transmitter research, it made sense to move the chicks to the roof at banding rather than try to retrieve them a second time from the wall nestbox where the potential for one or more of them to try to escape and injure themselves was much greater.  In 2012, the decision was made to use the same technique as it had worked well the previous year.  We were a couple of days later than in 2011 which at this stage in the chicks' development meant we had to to be prepared for the possibility that we wouldn't be able to catch the chicks because we didn't want to push them into fledging early.  So we watched the cams and waited for an opportunity and as soon as they hopped up on the wall, we knew we weren't going to be able to include them in the research that year.

[Jazzerkins]

Very interesting topic.  Thank you, TPC, for your explanations and the pop quiz.  Lots to think about before commenting further. 

[Rose]

1.  Are the webcams everyone is enjoying interference or interaction?  Are they a necessity? Are they desired?
2.  Are public banding events interference or interaction?  
3.  Are fledgewatches interference or interaction?  Are they a necessity? Are they desired?


1:webcams are not an interference (birds don't know they are on camera) No they aren't a necessity. They are desired by some people and not by others. You can have interaction only on one side(the person watching can ooh and aah and talk baby talk to the screen and tell everyone how cutsie they are. But on the other side of the coin people can become very distressed and anxious if it seems that things are not going the way people think they should. These same people demand that something should be done asap and give endless  advice as to what should be done even though most things that occur are within the norm.

2:Public Banding events are done as a teaching tool and I suspect to gain donations for whichever cause or wildlife group that supports Banders projects, so in that way could be called either an interaction or interference especially if people are allowed to handle the chicks. For myself I would prefer that banding should be done with as few people there as possible(like it's done in Brandon  and Winnipeg) because there is always video to show what is going on.

3:Fledge watches are both interference and interaction( eg if a chick lands on a street of course good fledge watchers are going to interfere and they will interact with the chick to keep it safe)Are they a necessity, they probably are depending where in the country nests are located and the availability of people to watch(Winnipeg is a good example lots of willing people,  high nests and heavy traffic). In smaller areas not so much (Brandon only 2 people to watch and because the chicks are much closer to the ground you can usually tell when they are ready but I can tell you we do check on them usually twice a day and if the parents alarm call RCF has been known to drive in from Rapid City to check. Are they desired? I guess that depends on where the nests are.

[Cooper]

Very interesting pop quiz TPC. I have no problem forming the opinion that the webcams are interaction that is not necessary but highly desirable. The other two aren't quite as black and white for me. I can see some qualifiers ("So long as...", "but, if...") moving a fine line between the two.

Thanks for your comments!

[The Peregrine Chick]

Interference is a legal term and applies to when human actions are interfering with individuals' or species' activities, habitat or behaviour.  Human interaction is what you are actually talking about and it is not forbidden but what interaction is permissible is determined by provincial and federal government regulation on advice from scientists, recovery teams and probably with some input from government officials.  As for necessity, that depends on what you are trying to achieve and what interaction is permissible.  

What recovery projects try to do is keep as many adult and young peregrines safe and secure while they are at the nestsite.  For our Project that means we put up nestboxes, work with partners to install webcams for the public to learn about the peregrines, we band the chicks and if a chick should be injured we work with others determine the best outcome for the bird. If the birds don't need our assistance, then we leave them alone.  If we know the risk to the birds at a location is high, we try to find ways to stop them from nesting there and barring that find ways to improve their odds of survival.  Some locations are considerably more proactive on that front than we are - Alberta for example.  If a bird is injured then we advise on the best course of action for the bird.

Manitoba Conservation's job is to manage the province's natural resources for the species welfare/future on behalf of Manitobans.  That means managing hunting, trapping, problem wildlife, research and monitoring (for both at-risk and not at-risk species), habitat work, public education programming, etc.  Assessing research proposals is part of their mandate to manage a species and they make their decisions on the value of the results of the research to the species' management and the impact on the individuals involved.  If deemed a worthwhile avenue of research with an acceptable level of impact/interaction, then it can be approved.  Banding birds - songbirds, waterfowl, species-at-risk, etc - is one example of an approved research/monitoring activity that provides information on species' population dynamics, distribution, movements and behaviours.

So pop-quiz ...

1.  Are the webcams everyone is enjoying interference or interaction?  Are they a necessity? Are they just desirable?
2.  Are public banding events interference or interaction?  
3.  Are fledgewatches interference or interaction?  Are they a necessity? Are they just desirable?

[Rose]

I guess I am becoming more and more confused about the legitimate role of humans in these birds' lives. While, like everybody here, I'd want all of the chicks to survive, I had thought that human interference was verboten.

I can see leaving a nest box or two around, that the birds can choose to use or not use, as legitimate "helping". I can even wrap my mind around assistance in emergencies. Although I do I do have some reservations about that. There seems to be a wide range around the world as to what constitutes legitimate "helping". It seems that birds in peril may be rescued in some places but not others.

Here we have a pair of healthy birds raising healthy chicks but choosing to do that in a place we don't like, one that we perceive as maybe being more dangerous for them.

I'm sure glad that it's not me who has to decide to move or not move them or, for that matter, even if I have the right to make such a decision.   

I have to agree Cooper. I thought that Manitoba Conservation's Mantra has been " Do not Interfere with Wild life" It has been in the media many times in the last few years. Last year we were told that the west Winnipeg chicks were hacked because of their unsafe natal nest but in reality they were needed for a research project so transmitters could be put on them, the McKenzie chicks were taken out of their nest box the last two years and put on the roof floor so they could be easily caught and have transmitters put on them. We were told the first year that the developer wanted to do some work on the nest box wall and they would be safer on the floor but we find out a week or so later that the chicks would be getting some new blings (transmitters) and no work of any kind has been done on the building or the wall since. The first year the chicks were easily caught and wore transmitters but the transmitters went off line (one just after migration and the other the next spring) Last year the chicks on the floor were a little smarter and weren't caught. Since this was a Manitoba conservation project it was deemed by them to be perfectly ok in spite of their Mantra. So I guess it depends on who is making these decisions and what decisions are made. I guess they want to have their cake and eat it too. So the question is "When is human interference a necessity"? when as you say it is verboten.

[Cooper]

I guess I am becoming more and more confused about the legitimate role of humans in these birds' lives. While, like everybody here, I'd want all of the chicks to survive, I had thought that human interference was verboten.

I can see leaving a nest box or two around, that the birds can choose to use or not use, as legitimate "helping". I can even wrap my mind around assistance in emergencies. Although I do I do have some reservations about that. There seems to be a wide range around the world as to what constitutes legitimate "helping". It seems that birds in peril may be rescued in some places but not others.

Here we have a pair of healthy birds raising healthy chicks but choosing to do that in a place we don't like, one that we perceive as maybe being more dangerous for them.

I'm sure glad that it's not me who has to decide to move or not move them or, for that matter, even if I have the right to make such a decision.