The Project > Ask the Peregrine Chick
Human Interference vs Interaction
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:
--- Quote from: Cooper on June 20, 2013, 13:33 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version