tracking collars

[Naturenutz]

I would just like to say how i hate to see tracking collars on aniimals.ive watched a fair few documentaries lately where the subjects have tracking collars.Big ugly boxes with arials on the backs of birds of prey,to huge collars engulfing a leopards neck.I know they may be part of conservation but i really hate to see our rare wildlife subjected to wearing these monstrosities.
gripe over .

[pegasus]

Originally Posted by Naturenutz

I would just like to say how i hate to see tracking collars on aniimals.ive watched a fair few documentaries lately where the subjects have tracking collars.Big ugly boxes with arials on the backs of birds of prey,to huge collars engulfing a leopards neck.I know they may be part of conservation but i really hate to see our rare wildlife subjected to wearing these monstrosities.
gripe over .

Yes i know what you mean.You forgot to mention bird-ringing as well,which while i'm sure is invaluable for measuring bird migration and population, i wonder whether it's become a more intellectual and 'scientific' form of hunting,that gives the ringers as similar 'buzz' as hunters get.Recently i reported a Turnstone that had been ringed[three times]-----numerous sightings revealed it had travelled 1000 yards in a 18 month period!

Now with my more rational hat on---If experts say these tracking devices are essential to help these species survive then i guess we have to trust them ,even if it challenges our aesthetic view of wildlife.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by pegasus

Yes i know what you mean.You forgot to mention bird-ringing as well,which while i'm sure is invaluable for measuring bird migration and population,

Without ringing (and tracking) we would know literally nothing about migration routes, animal movements or demographics. We would not even be able to measure bird populations, as you cannot tell one from another without marking them.

Originally Posted by pegasus

i wonder whether it's become a more intellectual and 'scientific' form of hunting,that gives the ringers as similar 'buzz' as hunters get.

I hear this a lot about ringing/tracking, but do people think it should be carried out by solemn-looking folk who don't want to be there? If you want people to gather scientific data of conservation value for you, for free (actually, ringers pay to ring), then you should be happy that they actually enjoy it. I imagine that the buzz of getting a good photo is similar to that of a hunter, or the buzz of finding an unusual bird at your local patch. But which one is of more conservation value - birdwatching, photography or ringing?

Originally Posted by pegasus

Recently i reported a Turnstone that had been ringed[three times]-----numerous sightings revealed it had travelled 1000 yards in a 18 month period!.

But it had probably travelled 2000 miles to and from the tundra between those times. What your record showed is that the bird was loyal to a wintering site. The ringing project that the bird probably came from (there's only one that I know of for Turnstone) has shown that British birds go to Canada for the summer. Or, rather, that Canadian birds winter in Britain.

Originally Posted by pegasus

Now with my more rational hat on---If experts say these tracking devices are essential to help these species survive then i guess we have to trust them ,even if it challenges our aesthetic view of wildlife.

Unfortunately, pretty aesthetics don't let you know how much land area a leopard needs (and whether we can protect it), or where British Swallows spend the winter (and whther they are safe), or how many Blue Tit chicks survived the winter in 2008/9. Ringing and tracking can do this.

[The Woodman]

Originally Posted by Naturenutz

I would just like to say how i hate to see tracking collars on aniimals.ive watched a fair few documentaries lately where the subjects have tracking collars.Big ugly boxes with arials on the backs of birds of prey,to huge collars engulfing a leopards neck.I know they may be part of conservation but i really hate to see our rare wildlife subjected to wearing these monstrosities.

Is that a vote for the methodology employed for tracking salmon then?

No visible transmitter but a radio tag capsule shoved into its gut.

The reasons for and the results are pretty much in common with all radio tagging even for the diminutive bat that carries one glued to its back.

[RKB]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

Is that a vote for the methodology employed for tracking salmon then?

No visible transmitter but a radio tag capsule shoved into its gut.

The reasons for and the results are pretty much in common with all radio tagging even for the diminutive bat that carries one glued to its back.

They're not shoved in the gut, they're implanted under the skin. Quite different.

It's possible to track bees, so bats are hardly a problem. There are also guidelines about how much of the their bodyweight you can increase with a tag, which is generally 3-5%.

[The Woodman]

Not the ones I've used RKB, they've been gently pushed into the gut. Shoved was probably the wrong word.

PIT tags under the skin perhaps and Floy tags into it.

[Naturenutz]

When we track our rare animals,at what point do we become a danger to there very survival ? eg - If there are only 3 pairs of snow leopards (untrue i know) in the world and we track them all,surely we may be accidently scaring prey,or leaving scents etc causing stress,even if we are not in visual contact with them.And even though these trackers work from long distance they are still used to get close for film making reasons etc.I cant help thinking we are harming while trying to do good for our very rarest animals.