野生動物因研究之名所遭受的騷擾

By Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
If we pretend
that we are at the center
that moles and kingfishers,
eels and coyotes are at the edge of grace,
then we circle,
dead moons about a cold sun.
-- Joseph Bruchac

Each year, hundreds of thousands of animals are captured, examined, tagged and some are even surgically implanted with transmitters to follow their movements. This is done in the name of science, yet often the techniques for the capture of these animals are crude, resulting in tremendous stress on the animal and often death.

We have no idea of how this stress effects breeding patterns or the chances of survival of the individual. Only recently have scientists been studying the effects that such activities are having on wildlife populations.

Banded bird being released (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey Patuxtent Wildlife Research Center)

Anyone can apply for a research grant. There are many sources and the requirements vary widely. It is relatively simple to define a program of study, a research plan, and a budget for that research. Funds are awarded from a variety of sources, and if you happen to be a scientist or professor at a major university, chances are excellent that your research will be approved.

But there are few requirements on the nature of the research. It doesn't have to be unique and does not even have to produce tangible results. Most grants require reporting of progress and of completion, but few require the researcher to produce results that will be useful and meaningful and some do not even require an end date.

Many research projects throughout the country are routinely renewed by their funding sources without any requirement that any substantial progress ever be made.

Parks and reserves all over the nation that are considered as havens for people and animals from the stresses and hazards of urban life, are often used by researchers to capture, examine, and tag wildlife as part of a research program.

At Discovery Park, Seattle largest public park, crows and songbirds have been harassed for years by local researchers and graduate students. Fledgling crows are removed from nests, measured, weighed and banded, stressing them considerably. Well meaning amateur and professional researchers capture songbirds, weighing and banding them. While I was manager of that park, I insisted that the lead crow researcher explain the purpose of the research and what they hoped to accomplish. The letter I received from them was unconvincing. Their research goals were vague and ill defined.

Goose with neck band. Can this have no effect on the animal? (Photo courtesy Pro-Touch Engraving)

Bird banding is a common technique for tracking the movement, behavior and survival rate of birds across the globe.

The first record of a metal band being attached to a birds leg goes back to 1595 and since then, tens of millions of birds and other wild animals have been captured and tagged.

The typical mantra of bird banders and wildlife taggers is exemplified in the following statement from the website of the North American Bird Banding Program, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. In a discussion of the importance of bird banding, the site states that "without an individual marker, there would be no way to determine if the cardinal that is outside my window is the same bird that I saw last year or not. With a bird band, if I catch that cardinal today and band it, I will know if that one bird is caught again in the future."

While there may be a justification to learning about the behavior of cardinals, is it prudent or wise to suggest that we must know if the bird we see outside is the same one we saw last year? Why is it not enough to see the bird and marvel at its existence without needing to capture it and tag it?

There are a lot of good reasons to learn about animal migration routes, disease research, populations and life spans. But the fundamental flaw in research such as this is not the quality of the information, but the lack of focused uses for the information.

The numbers of birds recovered that have been banded are not very impressive. In 1995, for example, over 1.1 million birds were captured and banded. Only 58,342 recoveries were reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory that year. The yearly numbers since then are similar.

This means that only one-half of one percent of the birds that are captured and put into jeopardy through stress and human contact supply research data. Is the data collected worth the impact on the wildlife?

There are many possible consequences to capturing, marking and tagging wildlife. In a report written by the Canadian Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in 1998 titled "Live Animal Capture and Handling Guidelines for Wild Mammals, Birds, Amphibians and Reptiles in British Columbia," a compassionate set of principles was established to govern the use of wildlife in research.

Grizzly bear wearing a tracking collar (Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey)

The report states that "animals that are traumatized from the actions of researchers are less likely to exhibit normal behavioural, physiological and ecological responses than untraumatized animals. In addition, they are less likely to survive due to an increased susceptibility to predation and subsequent injury."

Only in the last few years have researchers begun to realize that their results can be rendered useless if the behavior of the animal subject has been altered because of the little understood traumas induced by capture and tagging.

The Canadian report goes on to describe the care that must take place when marking an animal. "Marking techniques can have a wide variety of effects ranging from short term discomfort, to long term influences on breeding and survival ... In choosing an acceptable marking technique, the investigator must consider the nature and duration of the restraint that is required for its application, the amount of tissue that is removed or damaged, the amount of momentary or prolonged pain that is involved and the potential risk for infection."

Another factor that must be considered is the validity of the research. More scrutiny must be given to research proposals and efforts must be made to avoid excess duplication of studies. No longer can wild animals be considered an infinite source of data to keep an endless treadmill of questionable research projects going.

If proposals were more carefully monitored, this alone would send shock waves through the research community. And that community is long overdue for some shaking up.