To Pertti Saurola 5.6.1996 for free distribution and use in the EURING board meeting in Heterun, June
1996. This can be published in the meeting papers. This will be delivered to the participants of "Gull
meeting" in Wismar, Germany at 30.8.-1.9.1996 arranged by Mr. Ronald Klein. Any comments to this
paper are extremely welcome.

PS 31.7.2004. Now I use word READ RINGING instead of CODE RINGING...

Total Assessment of Bird Ringing Risto Juvaste

This paper shows the overall advantages of the code ringing (individually coded colour
ringing). In a fictional assessment study for seagulls the code ringing is valuated as
about ten times better than the use of standard rings. Therefore EURING ought to
promote and organize the development of the European code ringing.

In the Finnish ringers´ annual meeting last January I had a presentation of using
environmental life cycle assessment (LCA, ecobalances) in assessing bird ringing
methodologies. By using LCA-methodology and SimaPro-software I compared the
environmental impacts of using metal and PVC rings for seagulls. I showed that the use of
code rings is the best alternative actually in all aspects (Fig. 1-2). Therefore we should go
over to use plastic rings everywhere where it is reasonable. EURING ought to consider how
to take care of this development and how to develop colour ringing methodology.

From pleasure and melancholy to assessment

I have been running a code ringing project of nominate Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus
fuscus fuscus) since summer 1993. This scheme has been partly sponsored by WWF of
Finland. Altogether nearly 1700 chicks have been individually code-ringed. Now the project
has begun to produce records. We have got already at least ten readings from wintering
areas, one from Yemen and the rest from Tel Aviv. The first subadult birds are now coming
back to Finland. At the end of May I have managed to read eleven different birds at the
dumping ground of Joensuu. Unfortunately 3rd of May an old code-ringed one was
captured from the geese cage in the Zoo of Helsinki. This bird had broken the tarsus with
plastic ring (perhaps while struggling in the cage). By mistake it was killed by the zoo vet.
Though it's body will be used in a study of environmental poisons in the seagulls I think
they ought to have let it go free even with a broken tarsus. There exists huge amount of
seagulls that seem to manage well. Anyway, this made the ringer, who had added the code
ring to the bird, to finish the use of plastic rings totally. He does not want to cause extra risk
to these decreased gulls. He decided, however, to continue normal metal ringing.

These things got me think over the benefits and impacts of bird ringing. We need a lot of
different type of knowledge, for instance for protection of birds. A part of it is collected by
ringing. But which is the best way to collect that data? I determined to enlarge my LCA
study to a total assessment of these two bird ringing methods.

The ringing is a technical activity and it has to be assessed by many different aspects:
effectivity, economy and ecology, but even ergonomical, aesthical, ethical and social aspects
ought to be considered. To make these assessments and valuations to different ringing
methodologies we have to have some functional unit to compare the results. The natural
functional unit for ringing is the amount of records (recoveries, controls or readings).

Effectivity of ringing

For many species code ringing is the superiour to traditional ringing. This can easily be
seen from the record rates of marked birds. The code ringing of seagulls is exceptionally
effective, because large flocks of gulls are often easy to check at dumping-grounds or
resting places. The relative amount of readings will still increase if the percentage of the
code ringed birds and knowledge about code ringing projects are increasing. Already now
we can get even daily records from some birds for weeks. Getting hundreds of readings in a
year from the same bird may look useless, but just this kind of series of records can be used
as a new type of data to understand the behaviour and movements of the birds.

I estimate that the amount of records per a code ringed gull is about 30-50 times higher
than by usual steel rings within the average life time of gulls. The effectivity of code ringing
is reduced by the lower effectivity in actual ringing phase, if the possible ringing time is
limited and there are a lot of birds to ring. This is often the situation in large colonies.
Another problem with plastic rings is the limited durability of the ring. They wear out
usually in ten years, which is not enough for some long living species as seagulls. But on
the other hand, the most interesting phase of the population dynamics is covered. The life of
most birds after the age of ten years is fairly stable, though often very productive. These
problems could be reduced by development of plastic rings more durable and easy to use.
Altogether my estimate is now that the code rings are about 20 times more effective for
seagulls than the use of metal rings. In other words, that means that instead of using 1000
metal rings for gulls we could reach the equivalent results only by using 50 code rings.

Economical assessment

The code rings are considered to be expensive. Now the price of normal engraved code plate
for seagulls is about three Finnish marks. Stainless steel rings cost a little less than one
mark. However, the price of a code ring plate can be reduced into a half by ordering about
ten thousand ring plates at a time. Considering the difference in effectivity we notice that
the price of knowledge about seagulls gained by metal rings is about ten times more
expensive than by plastic rings. We could get savings by using code rings. In some cases
great savings can be achieved in the amount of the field work and travelling costs. On the
other hand the including of reading costs acts to another direction.

Ecological or environmental assessment

This was demonstrated in our ringer's meeting by an fictional study by using LCA
methodology and SimaPro software. The environmental impacts of producing a metal ring
is almost equal to those of a plastic ring (Fig.1). However, taking into consideration the
whole life cycle of the rings and the fuctional unit (amount of records) the environmental
soundness of code rings was superiour to metal ones (Fig. 2).

Here we have to assess also the extra risk for the birds that is arising from the rings. I think
that the direct risk or harm is about equal from both types of rings. However, the difference
in the effectivity leads us to the conclusion that the extra risks from code rings are only a
fraction from the use of the metal rings. The inconvenience to the birds while ringing, for
instance in gull colonies, is smaller by code ringing, if we are aiming at the same result in
records. In many cases the drawbacks of the code ring, because of slower ringing action,
can be totally avoided. Also the development of the code rings reduces the inconvience, but
even now the code rings are better alternative in this aspect. Anyway every ringer ought to
compensate the extra risks for bird by active conservation work.

Ergonomical, ethical, aesthical and social aspects

Ergonomically the metal rings are easier to use for the ringer, but on the other hand this
benefit is lost by the effectivity rate. The glues, that are used to fasten the plastic rings, are
often toxic and have to be handled with care. Normally the differences in these inconviences
for the ringer are insignificant. Ethically both methods are about equal. If the ringing
activities in general are considered ethically precarious, then the code ringing is better
because its better effectivity.

Aesthically the big colour rings can be assessed to be worse, but inconvience for people is
extremely small. Some people can appreciate them as nice and exciting. Socially the code
rings are better, because they yield more personal contacts while reading and changing
information.

Total assessment

Altogether the code ringing seems to be superior to metal ringing in this seagull example,
mainly because of its effectivity. The total valuation of this fictional study is done in the
Table 1. We can see that the code ringing is about ten times better. The weights of the
aspects reflect my opinions, but they do not affect much to the total result. We can easily
get similar results with many other group of species. This total assessment result raises the
question, why the code ringing is so unpopular in the European ringing schemes? Most
colour ringing projects are organized by private persons. Are the ringing schemes afraid of
too many records? But what is the target of ringing in general? Why to use huge amount of
metal rings, if the same results could be collected better by code rings? In fact, by code
ringing a lot of new type data can be very quickly collected.

In my opinion EURING ought to urgently organize a workgroup to study, assess, coordinate
and develop code ringing of different species. Also suitable software for handling the
records and other data ought to be developed quickly. I think that in this could be a
possibility for an EU-project. I am ready to participate in it or even to participate in
applying for it, if I get support from other countries. Specially, I am, as a senior lecturer in
plastics technology, interested to develop code rings technically.

Bibliogragrphy: Flamant Renaud (1994), Overwiew of the colourmarking programs of birds with colour
rings, neckings and wingtags in Europe. Aves 31: 65-182

Juvaste Risto (1996), Ecobalances and ringing, Presantation in XXVII Ringer's
Meeting in Finland (Summary letter, in Finnish)

Contact information:

Risto Juvaste ^^ /\/\ ^^ ^^ ^^ /\/\ ^^
Viljakaari 4 ^^ ^^ ^^ /\/\ ^^ ^^
80510 Onttola ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FINLAND
Do you see here sea and seagulls?
Then you might see colour rings, too!

Job: Senior teacher, M.Sc., plastics technology, eco-design
North Karelia Polytechnic, Institute of Technology
Karjalankatu 3, 80200 Joensuu, Finland

Code ringing activities 1996, use or delivery of code rings (or engraved ringplates) with
cooperation with Finnish Ringing Centre and Kjeld Pedersen and Peter Rock:

- Lesser Black-backed Gull conservation project, sponsored by WWF Finland, nearly
1000 code rings, including 100 ones to Sweden and 100 ones to Russia
- Herring Gull project, managing herring gulls on dumping-grounds, together with
Dr. Mikael Kilpi, sponsored by Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation, over 2000 code
rings during the first year of three year study
- other species (Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Mash Harrier and Jackdaw),
deliveries of code rings to private ringers, about 1000 rings

Table 1. Total assessment indexes and weights for two seagull ringing methodologies

Aspects	Effectivity	Economy	Ecology	Others	Index for
Weights	5	5	10	5	goodness
Metal ring	1	1	1	1	1
Code ring	20	10	10	2	10

   
      These figures are missing in this www-text
    
       Figure 1.  LCA results of a fictional study for seagull ringing, calculated by SimaPro 2.0
                           The results from the production of the rings
                           Muovirengas = PVC code ring,  Terasrengas = Stainless steel ring
                           a) Relative emissions      b) Relative environmental impacts 
       
       Figure 2.  LCA results of a fictional study for seagull ringing, calculated by SimaPro 2.0
                           The results from the whole life cycle of ringing for 1000 records
                           Muoviloydot = PVC code ring,  Terasrengas = Stainless steel ring
                           a) Relative emissions      b) Relative environmental impacts