A Deadly Contradiction: Birds of Prey & the Media

How have we got to here? A place where some areas of the general public can be so in awe and yet have a such a strong dislike of birds of prey almost at the same time. 

Buzzards have once again been in
the spotlight for all the wrong reasons

It seems hardly a day goes by without a news outlet somewhere publishing a story over hyping the often imaginary threat that birds of prey pose to us and other wildlife. The latest in this long line is Irish media coverage about the 'dangers' Buzzards pose to small dogs and sheep. And yet, almost in the same breath shows like Planet Earth 2 and Springwatch which allow us to feast our eyes on stunning footage of magnificent eagles and hawks are more popular than ever. 

Lets set the scene, we are currently living in a post-persecution age; the threat posed by persecution and killing of birds of prey has reduced massively in the past century; despite some illegal killing continuing (Hen Harriers spring to mind). My point is all birds of prey have had legal protection for some time now. This has resulted in many species increasing in number: Buzzards are the classic examples but species like Peregrines and Sparrowhawks have also recovered from historically low levels. This means things are a changing; people don't really like change, All of a sudden people are seeing more birds of prey, its not what they are used to or remember, timely capitalisation of this be the media means scaremongering is easy. 

Sparrowhawks are often wrongly
blamed for songbird declines

Secondly, and this is a little contentious. I think part of the reason for this blame culture towards birds of prey is people trying to cover up the mess we have made of the environment by passing the buck to something else. Its much easier to blame the increase in Sparrowhawks for the decline of songbirds than it is to look at the mistakes being made in land management or predation by cats and try and fix the problem, Now I'm not accusing everyone who has ever looked at a Red Kite suspiciously of thinking this, but some media outlets seem hell bent on painting birds of prey as a sort of 'ecological bad guy' when the reality is that they form part of a balanced ecosystem. 

It is also important to consider the relevance of the birds of prey being talked about or shown to the lives  those reading about them or watching them. Making a story relevant and the reader feel like they are going to be personally effected is an ancient tool the the journalists toolbox. And here, in my opinion, lies the problem. When Sir David Attenborough is doing a voice over for a section of a program on majestic eagles they are very far away often not even in the U.K. This means people feel detached towards them. They can appreciate them for what they are and what they do without and vested interest or bias. Flip the coin and you get the opposite, when Joe Bloggs reads that Buzzards in the local area might be hurting and even killing pets its a little too close to home. It could be Joe's faithful Yorkshire Terrier companion Fido next on the menu. Even if the story is complete nonsense, which is almost always the case, the gut instinct is to defend whats yours and therefore you take a negative view of birds of prey. If this gets repeated a few times all of a sudden you have a group of people who have an irrational dislike for anything with wings and talons.

So, whats the solution? How do we improve the image of birds of prey? The obvious answer is a change in the attitude of the media, but even in my over-optimistic naivety I don't think this will happen any time soon. That leaves it with us. Promote birds of prey and how amazing they are as much as you can, most people take advice and ideas they hear from their friends, family and neighbours more time and are more likely to act on it than what gets provided by the media, Lets use this to give birds of prey a helping hand. 

Re-introducions: Vital work or a waste of money?

The California Condor was saved with one
of the most expensive re-introduction projects ever. 

Re-introductions are undeniably expensive. the cost of rearing and caring for animals in captivity (often using specialist techniques), the expense of transporting animals to the release sites as well as costs related to preparing the release site and monitoring of individuals once they have been released means that the bills for re-introductions are large. One of the most expensive re-introduction projects is that of the California Condor which has cost $35 million since 1987. That is a lot of money by any standard, and in the chronically underfunded world of conservation it may wrinkle a few noses to think about the other huge befits that that money could have had if diverted elsewhere; such as protecting habitats.

Even if the animals are released there is no guarantee that they will survive and be successful. Food, disease, predators, climate, weather and stress caused from captivity and transportation can all stop a population from growing, surviving and reproducing. Even the best feasibility studies cannot predict everything and sometimes there will be factors that haven’t even been considered that cause a re-introduced population to wither and die off. Research undertaken by the University of Exeter looking at 45 case studies of predator re-introductions found that only 30% of released animals survived. Most deaths were caused by humans by things such as shooting and traffic collisions.

A good re-introduction can be (and often is) the jewel in the crown for many conservation organisations. Indeed, the list of species re-introduced just in the U.K makes for impressive reading. There is a huge variety: everything for Sea Eagles to Cirl Buntings to Field Crickets to Short-haired Bumblebees, the list goes on and of course Red Kites are thrown in for good measure. Then we have species that have re-introduced themselves, either by re-colonising naturally (like the Avocet) or by escaping from captivity (like the Wild Boar). Each of these re-introductions helps to replace just a little bit of out lost biological heritage. So, in many ways the funds put into these projects help to protect and rewild our precious and delicate ecosystems. 

The Return of Wolves brought
massive benefits for the
ecosystems of Yellowstone.

Re-introductions often focus on keystone species, these are species on which an ecosystem depends in some way. So, returning them will have large ecological benefits. The classics example here is the return of Wolves to Yellowstone National Park. The story is complex, but it boils down to the retied wolves control numbers of grazers in the park. This then allowed other species such as beavers to increase in number and help to restore a healthy ecosystem. More about it can be found here.

Re-introductions of species can have many benefits to the human population of the area as well. Restoring ecosystem functions can reduce the risk of flooding as well as reduce costs associated with processes such as water cleaning. Returning large charismatic species to an area can increase ecotourism, boosting the local economy. Moreover, these flagship species can act as a sort of ‘poster boy’ for conserving the wonder habitats on which they depend.

Overall, despite the drawbacks, when done properly re-introductions are a valuable weapon in the conservationists’ arsenal. Strict guidelines relating to re-introductions from the IUCN mean that any project must be evaluated and deemed to have a high likelihood of success. This means that minimal money is wasted and we can restore some of our lost natural heritage and make the world around us just a little bit wilder. 

Whose Land is it Anyway?

If there is one good thing about human beings it’s our ability to get a lot done in a short time. Unfortunately this also applies to altering and changing the natural environment (mostly for the worst). The scale of human based impacts on ecosystems is huge particularly when it comes to damaging and changing the habitats present to suit our own needs. To make it worse the funds to try to fix (or at least limit) the damage are often frustratingly limited.

The Tree Sparrow took advantage of agricultural
expansion, but has since declined markedly. 

Thankfully for us nature can be flexible. Species can adapt to take advantage of altered land and the new niches and opportunities it presents. Whether this is Pied Wagtails roosting near vents on rooftops, Blue Tits using a nest box or Carabid beetles colonizing conifer plantations; life does its best to succeed. These examples are all of species that have exploited a new niches or opportunity in the short term. But given long enough whole communities can adapt to exploit a new habitat that has been created by man. I mentioned Farmland birds in my last blog post and I will talk a bit more about them now as they are a fascinating example of such a 'cultural community'. 

These birds have shown remarkably adaptability to human alteration of the landscape. All of the species we today associate with farmland (Yellowhammers, Linnets, Tree Sparrows etc) are primarily seed eaters. So naturally they would occur in open grassland habitats.

 Brief history lesson: the farmland in the U.K didn't just spring up by itself; it came about as a result of mass deforestation beginning sometime between 5000 - 4500 BC. This was for some species a death knell; but not these little pioneers. Populations moved and grew to exploit these new niches that had been created and it was a boom time for them. Fast forward 7000 years and these species are in serious decline: Yellowhammers by 54%, Linnets by 60% and Tree Sparrow by 90%. As a result huge efforts are being put into helping these species, with 65% of U.K farmland now under some sort of stewardship scheme. And rightly so it’s important to protect the species we have; they are all we have got left. 

As good as nature is at adapting and species amazing ability to colonise new habitats is; it’s a simple fact that the ecosystems that form around man-made habitats are often drastically different and sometimes a lot less diverse than there natural counterpart. So it could be argued that working to conserve and improve the population of species present is not enough to fully repair an ecosystem.

Beavers bring massive
benefits to wetland ecosystems. 

Step-up rewilding. This relativity new idea is gaining favour amongst conservationists. Advocated by people such as George Monbiot, rewilding aims to conserve on a large scale, protecting whole ecosystems and natural processes by returning them to their natural state (i.e pre-human impacts). Such projects often involve conversion of habitats to their natural state, such as re-forestation, and many include re-introductions of species and top predators to help bring ecosystems back into balance, by linking up habitat fragments and improving the overall ecosystem quality species populations tend to increase and become more stable. Re-introducing the right species can have huge benefits for the ecosystem as a whole, such as Beavers. Additionally, restoring ecosystem functions bring benefits such as minimising flood risk (reforestation) and water cleaning (reed beds). 

So whose land is it anyway? Which option is better, conserving the species we have or undertaking large and expensive rewilding projects to restore the species and habitats that should occur in an area? The truth is there is no clean cut answer. For some areas and habitats it makes sense to rewild; for example the reforesting of Scottish uplands to expand Caledonian Forest. However often some areas can’t be rewilded; maybe they are two small or the land use is too important to be changed. In these cases it makes sense to do our best to conserve the species already present.

So I guess it boils down to this. Humans have changed ecosystem and habitats so much that much of the land doesn’t really 'belong' to any species now. So the question of 'Whose land is it anyway?' becomes irrelevant. We need to do our best to conserve as much biodiversity as possible. The best way to do this is to be pragmatic….

Conservation in Chaos

It hit me like a punch in the face, one little sentence, one little number, that's all it was. What is this sentence you ask? It was this headline: 'World Wildlife falls by 58% in 40 years'. I'm not sure what got to me more, the staggering number and the sad loss of biodiversity it represents, or the fact that I wasn’t that surprised to read it (shocked yes but surprised no). Let’s face it; it’s no big secret that the world’s wildlife is in trouble. 



Rainforests are just one habitat
that has become fragmented
and damaged

You only have to speak to anyone over the age of fifty to realise that there is a lot less wildlife than there was a few decades ago. Less Lions, less Yellowhammers, less Cod pretty much less of everything. But what are conservationists doing about it? The answer seems to be about a million different things all at once. 



So often the conflict in conservation is portrayed as a tug-of-war between conservationists and non-conservationists (big business, corrupt governments etc). But the actual conflict is so often between conservationists themselves. Rather than a tug-of-war it can sometimes seems like there are a hundred different conservation organisations all pulling in one hundred different directions. Many special organisations promote the conservation and interests of the species they look-out for, this maybe different to another species needs. Some organisations look at whole habitats and some seem to just chase the funds wherever they are with no clear long-term objectives.  

Don’t get me wrong, it’s important we have organisations and interest groups looking out for all species and habitats at local, national and international levels. Whether it’s the Bumblebee Trust or the RSPB they all have a part to play. But it often leads to problems allocating limited funds and deciding what is best to conserve and how. Who has the power to decide what gets conserved and what doesn’t, what criteria can you use? Often it has to be done on a case by case basis. 

Yellowhammers have declined sharply,
but should we be conserving them?

This can even lead to a more basic question, what is natural for an area? Re-wilding is a big topic in conservation at the moment; aiming to restore landscapes to as close to their natural untouched state. Many conservation organisations feed into this to a greater or lesser extent. But what about species that have declined but maybe were not naturally that common? A good example of this is farmland birds in the U.K (Yellowhammers, Linnets, Tree Sparrows etc). These are essentially birds of open grassland. However, in pre-agricultural Britain most of the land was woodland, so these species were probably rare and localised. As agriculture spread so did they, unfortunately as agriculture intensified they got left behind. The subsequent declines have earned them a place on the Red list. But should we conserve them as they are essentially a 'cultural community' created by the landscapes we made for our own ends. 

Well my answer to this is a resounding yes, we should. We have lost 58% of out wildlife but we still have 42%. That’s 42% we can, if we are smart, protect, conserve and restore. Let's protect what we have left, because it’s all we’ve got. 

So, although this 58% figure paints a bleak picture it doesn’t have to be a cause to give up hope and go home. Let’s use it as a low point, a line in the sand. Conservation needs to take a step back, survey the damage and then unite to work out what can be done. 

Conservationists: Just Self-indulgent Hypocrites?

How can conservationists claim to want to protect and preserve certain species whilst at the same time promoting the shooting, culling and destruction of others? 

Let me set the scene. In one corner is the argument that conservationists should be aiming to protect and preserve all animals regardless of species and status. In the other corner we have the argument that certain species need to be controlled  to preserve the wider habitat or ecosystem. Is selecting the species to cull hypocritical and by being the ones to select which species are protected are conservationists self-indulgent. I will outline some examples of situations of where species control is as well as others where it isn't acceptable and explain the reasons for this. 

A Badger Feeding

Lets start with species for which culling or shooting isn't acceptable. Example 1: The Badger Cull. This government led project aims to control and eradicate Bovine Tuberculosis (Bovine Tb). Bovine TB has cost British farming an estimated £500 million over the past decade and Badgers can act as carriers. So why oppose the cull?  The majority of scientific evidence shows badger culls do not deal with the problem effectively. Trials undertaken between 1998 and 2006 showed culling causes a short term decrease in levels of Bovine Tb locally but it then increases also Bovine Tb occurrence in neighboring areas increased due to disturbance of Badgers. There are also welfare implications, with some individuals taking several minutes to die. Many conservation organisations support a solution to Bovine TB but do not support the cull.

The second example is the shooting of birds of prey on grouse moors to minimise Red Grouse predation. These actions help to increase grouse numbers for the shooting season. Here the lines are clear-cut and defined. Persecution of these birds is illegal and many trapping methods were outlawed over a century ago. The RSPB has an investigation unit examining such crimes and bringing the offenders to justice. Despite legal protection the shooting of birds of prey continues. The levels are significant enough to be effect populations of these species. The poster species (sadly) is the Hen Harrier; England holds enough habitat for 300 pairs to breed but in 2014 only 4 did (that's 1.3% of the potential number). As a result there are campaigns to protect the Hen Harrier and other birds of prey.  In this case its obvious to see why this is strongly opposed by conservationists; its illegal and damages populations. For more about the impacts of grouse shooting check out Mark Avery's blog. 

The Iconic Scottish
Caledonian  Pine Forest

Now on to the more contentious examples. The first of these is the culling of deer. Now Bambi is cute and adorable, but unfortunately deer cause massive problems. The lack of top predators (such as Wolves and Lynx) mean that deer are found in higher numbers than would naturally occur. As a result they put massive pressure of forests from overgrazing. For example overgrazing by Red Deer is stopping regeneration of the Caledonian Pine Forest in Scotland which then impacts rare native species such as the Capercaillie. Additionally on a more local level many woodland nature reserves are being damaged by grazing from Roe and Muntjac Deer. As there is no natural regulation of the population it means that culling is often the most effective means of control.  This preserves valuable woodland habitat and allows natural regeneration of trees; resulting in a habitat that is better for other woodland species. So overall there is a benefit to the ecosystem. 

The Ruddy Duck 

The second example is that of the Ruddy Duck. This is a very contentious issue, all I'm doing here is reporting what happened and why. The Ruddy Duck escaped from captivity in the U.K in the 20th century and rapidly increased in numbers. They spread across the country and some made it to Spain. Here they began to hybridize with the native and endangered White-headed Duck. This was seen to cause a threat to the gene pool of the White-headed Duck and may lead to local extinctions through inter-breeding. As a result of this the U.K government decided to undertake a cull of Ruddy Ducks, this was successful reducing numbers from an initial population of 5500 in 2000 to 20 - 50 by 2014. This should result in a reduction in hybridization of Ruddy and White-headed Ducks and reduce the pressure on the White-headed Duck population helping this species to survive. Despite this cull being endorsed by many conservation organisations it still remains controversial among some parties. 

There are many more examples of both acceptable and unacceptable situations for culling or shooting to take place; many are less clear cut than examples given here. I hope these examples have shown that conservationists are neither hypocritical nor self-indulgent, but work on a case by case basis. Understanding the species, habitat, circumstances and possible impacts allows each situation to be assessed and the best course of action to be taken. At times this can mean making difficult decisions, but they are always done with the best intentions and the bigger picture in mind. 

The War Rages On

Hot on the heels of Mark Avery's petition calling for the banning of driven Grouse shooting, Chris Packham has launched a petition calling for a moratorium on the shooting of declining wading birds. The aim being to allow for the impact of shooting on their populations to be assessed.

The petition focuses on three species of wading bird; the Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), the closely related Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) and the Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria). All three of the species have shown dramatic declines over the

The Woodcock

past 20 to 25 years with Snipe declining by 89%, Woodcock by 76% and  1 in 4 Golden Plovers disappearing. 

Clearly, on a national level, all three species are in a precarious position; and these declines may also have larger international impacts. Numbers of all three species in the U.K increase during the winter, being swelled by birds from the continent. This increase in numbers is reflected in the fact that wintering Golden Plover populations in the U.K are internationally important. Despite this all three are still quarry species, meaning that they can legally be shot during the appropriate season.

So what is this petition actually calling for? Well first things first, it is NOT, I repeat NOT, calling for an all-out ban on shooting waders. What it is calling for is a temporary suspension of shooting. During this time an independent scientific body can investigate the implications and impacts of shooting on the populations of these waders.

Golden Plover

In the short term this may ruffle a few feathers in the shooting fraternity. However when all is said and done both hunters and conservationists want to protect these birds, regardless of whether the motivation for doing so based on the commercial, recreational or intrinsic value of the species. Ultimately knowledge is power, knowing the impacts of shooting on these species will help us to protect and manage them in the future.
As far as I can see a moratorium from shooting these species and a subsequent investigation into shooting impacts could have three outcomes.

The Snipe

Outcome One (possible): We find out that shooting has a major impact on the populations of these birds and it is outright banned or suspended until a time when the populations are large enough for hunting to be sustainable (we would also know the levels of hunting and quotas that could be taken from a population), so in the long-term everybody wins.

Outcome Two (possible): Its found that shooting has some impact on the populations. In order to mitigate this quotas are introduced regulating how many birds are taken. This allows populations to recover and over time quotas have the potential to be increased in line with increases in populations, again everybody wins.

Outcome Three (unlikely): Shooting is judged to have no impact whatsoever on these species. It can carry on as before. This means that the conservationists can use their resources to research and mitigate other factors affecting the birds. Overtime populations should again increase as other factors causing declines are minimised. Again everyone wins.

So I hope from this you can see that by taking the actions called for in this petition all three of the species will benefit. It will allow for is to better understand what needs to be done to protect these fantastic birds.

Signing this petition will help to secure these birds future. Currently the number of signatures on the petition is 12,672. Passing the threshold of 10,000 means that DEFRA will have to issue an official comment on the issue. If it reaches 100,000 then the issue will be considered debate for parliament. Mark Avery's recent grouse shooting petition reached over 120,000 signatures, so lets build on this success and get another conservation issue debated in Westminster. Hopefully we will be able to protect these special birds in years to come. 

Sign the petition HERE.

100 Days of Recording

So, firstly please let me apologize for not really updating my blog recently. I was busy with exams and then once they had finished I was busy with sleep. Anyway, now I am back and ready to go again.

One of the advantages of being a student is the copious amount of summer holiday that you get. This year I literally have 4 months off. This is great but can get a little boring, so to spice thing up a bit I set my self a challenge. Now this is not epic endurance training for a marathon. No no, this is a challenge related to biological recording. Please don't just stop reading because it doesn't sound particularity headline grabbing; let me explain.

A Wasp Beetle

If you have had a poke around my blog (and if not why not) you will probably have stumbled upon my page about biological recording, it's here in case you want another look. From it you will learn that basically I think that biological recording is important and is one of the easiest ways to contribute to conservation. It was following in this vein that I decided to set myself the '100 Days of Recording Challenge'. It doesn’t take a genius to work out what this challenge entails, essentially it is about recording as many different species as I can over a 100 day period.

I am focusing my recording efforts on the area around my home and town to try to highlight the amazing diversity of species that can be found in a relatively small area; Of course I will also record things that I see elsewhere within Wiltshire. I am recording anything: a blue tit on the bird feeders, its a record. Working out what species of slug I have found, its a record. In order to record, store and submit all my sightings I am using a website called living record.

This website is dedicated to biological recording set up in such a way that you can find the relevant location on a map and add details of what you saw ans when you saw it. It is quick and easy to use, additionally all the records are sent to country-based experts who verify the data and pass it on the the Local Environmental Record Centre. This means that the records submitted are passed on to the right people and used as soon as possible, The aim is to try to add records daily of the species I see.

So if I had been more organised this post would have been uploaded on day one, however that didn't happen. 12 days into the challenge and I am doing well, I have recorded 88 species and a total of 91 individual records. Of these 36 are bird records.

Blue Tit

Biological recording is really easy to get involved with, just record everything and anything you see, this can be apart of a wider recording effort such as a bioblitz or long term recording scheme, or just as ad-hoc observations. Both have great value to conservation. A great start would be to do some recording as part of the Wildlife Trusts 30 days wild initiative for June. 

If you want to follow the challenge check out #100daysrecording on twitter

To find out more about Living Record click here.

For more about 30 Days Wild click here. 

The Flaming Owl

The Majestic Short-eared Owl

The cool crisp evening air gently blows across your face, the frosty grass crunches beneath your feet as you walk along the track. You stop at the viewpoint and wait, soaking in the view, you can see for miles from here. The sun just starts to drop below the horizon on the gin clear sky. The light starts to fade and you see it, a Short,eared Owl, it comes gliding out from behind a hedge and starts to hunt, its burning yellow eyes scan the ground fro prey. A few moments later another appears from the other side of the field. They fly for a while and then they meet in the air, locking talons they fight in the air. The sight in spectacular, something that is truly memorable. Its for this reason that Short-eared Owls are one of my favourite birds. 

Short-eared Owl distribution
(Green = resident, yellow= summer,
blue = winter)

The Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) is one of the five owl species which breed widely in the U.K. We have the familiar Barn Owl (Tyto alba) and Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) as well as the elusive Long-eared Owl (Asio otus). The fifth species is the Little Owl (Athene noctua) which is actually a naturalised species introduced in the 19 century. At this point I feel I should point out that the 'ears' of the Short and Long eared Owls are in fact tufts of feather. The ‘flammeus’ in the scientific name means mean ‘flaming or the colour of fire’ in Latin.

In the U.K Short-eared Owls breed mainly in Northern England and Scotland. The highest densities of breeding pairs occur in areas of mixed rough grasslands and heather moors with a typical home range being around 200 hectares. The current breeding population is estimated to be between 620 and 2180 pairs, this is a wide range and reflects the lack of knowledge we have about this species. Breeding occurs from March to June. The clutch will consist of 5 –7 eggs and incubation takes around 21 - 37 days. Birds fledge after about 4 weeks. When nesting the adults have been observed feigning injury to lure predators always from the vulnerable ground nest.

Aerial Combat

In winter Short-eared Owls can be found much more widely, and area of open rough grassland can potentially hold them; areas such as old airfields and salt marshes are perfect. They are crepuscular, meaning active at dusk and dawn, making them one of our most visible Owl species. Local to me in Wiltshire Salisbury Plain reliably holds a few wintering birds and in recent winters Wiltshire Wildlife Trust Blakehill reserve has held up to eight birds provided regular close up views. In total there are between 5000 - 50000 wintering birds. This range in numbers reflects influxes of birds from the continent and Scandinavia in colder winters. Analysis of birds breeding in the U.K has shown that they tend to winter in salt marshes and coastal areas in the U.K.

Unfortunately, like so many species, all is not well for the Short-eared Owl in the U.K. The species is Amber listed meaning it has undergone a breeding range and population decline, perhaps more than any other predatory bird. Like so many other upland breeding species (such as the Hen Harrier) a driver in the decline is the illegal persecution of birds of prey on some areas of upland and Grouse moor. This has worsened in recent years as the management of these moors has intensified. In order to address this BTO are undertaking a large scale research project into the British breeding population and there is growing support to move towards banning or restricting driven Grouse shooting.

To find out more about the BTO’s Short-eared Owls research click here.

For more information on Grouse shooting click here. 

No Luck Catching Them Swans Then.......

There are several hundred Whooper Swans in front of you on a lake. Your task is to catch as many of them as you can. How would you do it?

Swans being herded in the swan pipe

Well thankfully for you, the team at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have perfected the art of swan catching. In one corner of the lake there is a netted tunnel, it is this that you will catch the swans in. There are about 20 people waiting out of site in the wings waiting for the moment when the trap is sprung. One of the site warden walk along the side of the lake doing the daily swan feed, he goes into the pipe, and the birds duly follow. The seconds creep by as you wait for more and more swans to go into the pipe, at the right moment the decision is made, a rope is pulled and the netted door falls down, trapping the swans. You and the other sprint out into the tunnel as fast as you can. You farm a line and slowly walk down the tunnel pushing all the swans into the holding area at the far end, A few try to make a break for it between your legs but they are turned around. The swans all get herded into the pens and the door is closed. Congratulations, you have just completed a successful swan catch.



A swan in a swan harness

This exact scenario was played out twice a couple weeks ago at WWT Caerlaverock in Dumfriesshire and WWT Martin Mere in Lancashire. In total we caught 193 Whooper Swans, 37 Mute Swans, 1 Teal, 1 Pochard, 7 Pintail, 15 Mallard, 15 Shelduck and 7 Coot.

But why did we catch them? Well all the birds caught were fitted with a metal ring and the Whooper Swans and Coot were also given a coloured Darvic ring. This forms a vital part of WWT's long term monitoring program.



Darvic Rings

In addition to being ringed the swans also have a variety of biometric data taken. This helps to assess the swans general condition and health. So once they have been ushered into the holding areas the swans are divided up into a series of smaller pens, this means the catch can be manged better and gives the swans’ adequate room. Swans are then individually caught and sexed, this is done by looking at their vent. Once they have been sexed they are placed in a special designed harness which stops them from struggling.

From here they are passed along onto the ringing table where, unsurprisingly, the rings are fitted. Each bird is given a metal ring with a unique code on it, part of the BTO ringing scheme. The plastic Darvic ring, fitted on the other leg, has a three digit alpha-numeric code on a coloured background. This allows individual birds to be easily identified in the field, without need for re-capture. Here the total head measurement is taken (measuring the beak and skull length) and the tarsus (the lower leg) is measured. The bird is then taken to be weighed and wing length measured, these are carried out by separate teams forming a processing line for the birds. Once all these measurement have been taken the swans are released none the worse for wear. The other species were all fitted with a metal ring.



A map of the breeding a wintering range
of the Whooper Swan

Ringing the swans allows us to track their movements between the wintering grounds in the U.K and the Icelandic breeding grounds. We can also learn how they use different habitats, their lifespan and the partners and offspring. This provides us with invaluable information on their lives and a vital tool for conserving both the swans and their habitats. One a slightly darker note, we also know that 13% of Whooper Swans have lead shot in them, despite having legal protection and that many swans die from ingesting lead form the environment.  From ringing birds in this way we have learnt that some swans can survive to almost thirty years old. Also interestingly, some swans can get blown off course and join the Fennoscandia populations for a short time during winter before coming back the U.K and then returning to Iceland the following spring.  

Also of interest, one of the Pintails was a re-captured bird that was ringed at WWT Slimbridge in 2007.

To find out more about WWT’s work on the Whooper Swan click here.

To sign a petition calling for a ban on the use of lead shot click here.

For more information about bird ringing and the science it underpins click here.

How Does a Goose Break a World Record?

Most people have never heard of the Bar-headed Goose (Anser indicus). It is a mid-size goose, weighing in at between 1.8-3.2 kg and can live for up to twenty years in the wild. The main distinguishing feature of the Bar-headed Goose is, unsurprisingly, the two black bars on its head. The species is monotypic, meaning males and females look the same, and generally pair for life. The birds have a global range of approximately breeding from Mongolia through China and Tibet to Kyrgyzstan and spend the winter mainly in India and Bangladesh.

A Bar Headed Goose

This requires them to undertake a migration of around 1000 miles. This is not a particularly long migration; some birds such as the Artic Tern (Sterna paradisea) migrate over 20000 miles (40000 for a round trip). What’s remarkable about the migration of the Bar-headed Goose is that it takes them straight over the Himalayas. This means that the geese regularly fly at heights of 6000 metres for sustained periods of time. One radio tagged bird was recorded flying at and altitude of around 7300 metres. Climbers from Edmund Hillary’s famous 1953 ascend of Mount Everest have reported flocks of Bar-headed Geese flying over the mountain, an altitude of at least 8800 metres. Flying at such altitudes means the geese have to cope with Oxygen at a concentration that is less than 10% of that found at sea-level; as well as lower air pressure meaning the act of flying will itself be more strenuous. So how to these birds do it?

It has been known for some time that these geese have evolved several mechanisms that enable them to undertake such an astonishing feat. Firstly Bar-headed geese have a marginally larger wingspan and lower wing loading than other species of goose therefore meaning that a greater lift is produced and less power is needed for flight. Also the lungs of birds are much more efficient at extracting oxygen than mammalian lungs due to a counter exchange system lungs are superior to mammalian lungs. In Bar-headed geese this exchange system is larger than in other species of waterfowl furthermore their flight muscle is better supplied with oxygen than many similar birds.  On top of this the oxygen-carrying pigment haemoglobin is adapted to load more oxygen into the blood for transport to the muscles this coupled with the fact that Bar-headed geese (like some other species of bird) are able to increase their cardiac output to 5 times its usual rate when at altitude allows for the flight muscles to be supplied with plenty of oxygen. Plus they are able to hyperventilate more than 7 times faster than humans and not get dizzy, meaning that the net amount of oxygen reaching the blood increases.

The Migration of the Bar Headed Goose
is an astonishing feat

Recent studies have also found some surprising revelations relating to the birds behaviour and strategies for migration. One major behavioural adaptation these geese exhibit is to fly at night. This is a common migration strategy seen across many birds; in this case it is done because the air is cooler and denser thus reducing the cost of flying compared to daytime. Secondly the geese use an interesting flight pattern, instead of flying constantly at a high altitude they rise and fall following the contours of the mountains. It might seem wasteful to loose attitude only to regain it later but a recent study using satellite trackers on the geese has revealed the reason behind it. The study also monitored the heart rate of the geese and it found that at high altitudes the heart rate is very high; making flying at these heights very costly in terms of energy. Therefore hugging the ground is more efficient. Also the geese may benefit from wind deflections off ridges to gain extra lift. Remarkably the geese do all this without benefiting from any tail winds as they are constantly flapping.

There is still a lot to learn about this fascinating goose that could walk up Mount Everest without suffering any ill effects. Researchers are hoping to be able to look into the genetics of the Bar-headed Goose to understand how they are able to perform such energetic actions at high altitude. 

Tenerife Shenanigans (Part 2)

So I can tell you have literally been on the edge of your seat since reading my last blog post about my Tenerife trip. Well fear no more, this is the rest of my trip, here is part 2......

Day Three - Anaga Cloud Forest

Anaga Cloud Forest

For this day we travelled to the north-east corner of Tenerife to the Anaga Cloud Forest. This habitat is a relic of a habitats that, millions of years ago, was widespread across the Mediterranean basin. Today is found on Tenerife scattered across the island, only covering around 10% of its original area due to conversion to agriculture. Despite this it’s still an amazing habitat. 

We were undertaking a vegetation survey looking at how the types of vegetation changed with altitude. The range and size of some of the plants was incredible, there were heather plants the size of trees (unsurprisingly called tree-heathers) and huge ferns. The forests are almost always covered b clouds, of course when I was there it was clear. The conditions arise when the warm trade winds blow onto the island and the air rises when it hits Mount Teide, as it cools it form a layer of cloud that these plants exploit. A truly amazing ecosystem.

Of course I was looking out for birds. The day stared well with several Canary Island Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus canariensis) in the tress around however my main target species for the day were two near-endemic pigeon species: Bolle's Pigeon (Columba bollii) and Laurel Pigeon (Columba junoniae). I was very lucky and saw them both, I only had fleeting views however I was able to identify them by there distinctive tail patterns. 

Bolle's Pigeon (2a and 2b) and Laurel Pigeon (3a and 3b)

Day Four - Lizard Population Monitoring at El Medano

The Tenerife Gecko

Today was good fun, we spent the day trapping (and releasing) lizards to look at their populations and also temperature data. The site we went to had two lizard species: Southern Tenerife lizard (Gallotia galloti galloti) and Tenerife Gecko (Tarentola delalandii) both endemic to the island. We caught the Southern Tenerife lizards in bottle traps and the Tenerife Geckos were found by searching under rocks. This reflects the different lifestyles with the Southern Tenerife lizard being active in the day and the gecko being nocturnal. Once caught the lizards body size, internal and external temperature were taken as well the substrate and air temperate. 

After analysing the results it was found that the larger lizards came out later in the day, when it was warmer, this was expected. The data also showed the Southern Tenerife lizard actively maintained a constant body temperature throughout the day, by moving in and out of the sunlight whereas the geckos were able to function at any body temperature. Bird life was fairly thin on the ground, however good numbers of Spectacled Warbler (Sylvia conspicillata) were seen and I saw a single Spanish Sparrow (Passer hispaniolensis) in the town afterwards. 

Day Five - ITER Wind Farm

The Muscovy Ducklings that were swimming around,
not something I've seen before in January

So, day five the final day. Today we travel to the ITER wind farm in the south of the island. ITER is a research facility for sustainable and renewable energy, mainly wind and solar power. The work that is being undertaken here is brilliant. There isn’t much more I can say as I’m no expert when it comes to renewables, but if you want to know more their click here for their website. In terms of birds all I saw were some captive Muscovy duck, but there were some rather sweet ducklings swimming around.

Now I’m not massively sentimental, but I will say this. We spent most of the week looking at geology and how the past event on the island have affected the habitats and species found across the island. It seemed fitting to finish with a day looking forward at the future of Tenerife and indeed the world.

The Week in Birding

So I have been giving you little updates on the birds seen each day. I can say it was a very good week of birdwatching, especially considering that it was not actually a birding holiday. I managed to see pretty much all my target species and all the endemic and near-endemic species. Below is the full bird list, obly 21 species but its quality not quantity:

1	Kestrel	Falco tinnunculus
2	Feral Pigeon/Rock Dove	Columba livia
3	Bolle's Pigeon	Columba bollii
4	Laurel Pigeon	Columba junoniae
5	Collared Dove	Streptopelia decaocto
6	Pallis Swift	Apus pallidus
7	Common Swift	Apus apus
8	Great-Spotted Woodpecker	Dendrocopos major
9	Grey Wagtail	Motacilla cinerea
10	Berthelots Pipit	Anthus berthelotii
11	Blackbird	Turdus merula
12	Canary Island Chiffchaff	Phylloscopus canariensis
13	Tenerife Kinglet	Regulus (regulus) teneriffae
14	African Blue Tit	Cyanistes teneriffae
15	Spanish Sparrow	Passer hispaniolensis
16	House Sparrow	Passer domesticus
17	Chaffinch	Fringilla coelebs
18	Blue Chaffinch	Fringilla teydea
19	European Canary	Serinus canaria
20	Serin	Serinus serinus
21	Goldfinch	Carduelis carduelis
22	Southern Grey Shrike	Lanius meridionalis