New study shows drones could be stressing out wildlife

Mactadpole

Mactadpole

Member
Just had a colleague send me this news link today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...be-stressing-out-wildlife-scientists-suggest/

and here is a link to the paper abstract: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00827-1

Edit: the paper is open-source so you can grab it and read yourself.

The authors are not advocating for a ban on UAV's just that its something we need to take into consideration and do more research on.

I just downloaded the paper and will read it this weekend. My first question is how do the bears respond to a large predatory bird flying over and calling?

fx1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Motopreserve

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
This of course is not surprising. I would expect any animal to be alarmed by object (or being) that it can not instantly define as lesser on the food chain.

I do believe that we have a responsibility to avoid rattling the wildlife, as well as anything/anyone else for that matter. But it seems journalists are going to latch on to any tidbit of "news," including a observation like this that seems rather obvious.

For instance, I wonder what the bear's heart rate did when it first saw/heard a steam locomotive roar past its slumber pad? Or an F-16 flying overhead? I would imagine that drove some bears to blood pressure meds :)
 

jbrumberg

jbrumberg

Member
There are plenty of internet videos of wildlife, birds in particular; of attacking multi-rotor aircraft that invade their nesting and foraging territories.

Responsible owner/operators of RC aircraft should not knowingly and willfully harass wildlife. There are federal laws protecting endangered and threatened species from harassment, I have seen videos of that too. :mad:

I am not surprised about theses findings.
 

Motopreserve

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
Like many other activities that may at first seem like great uses for these craft, people are going to have to learn to refrain from harassing creatures large and small.
 

jbrumberg

jbrumberg

Member
I definitely agree.

Responsible owner/operators will probably modify the way they operate their RC aircraft with any new knowledge about how their activities affect the world around them; irresponsible o/o's probably will not.:mad:

There are certain areas on my property where I tend to fly where I will not go at certain times during the year. Wildlife has to deal with enough natural stressors. They do not need any more new manmade stressors. Mankind has already done enough damage to our ecosystems.
 



violetwolf

violetwolf

Member
I was just thinking of this yesterday when I was watching a video of a shoreline with many hundreds of sea lions and penguins. They looked stressed :(

I don't even fly close to a horse barn that is local to my test field, out of consideration for the animals.
 

fltundra

fltundra

Member
This is absolutely ridiculous. I had three f-16's at 500ft yesterday decide to take the scenic route over the island chain, over a state park, and over the edge of everglades national park. It would have taken 1000's of drones to create anywhere near the havoc those jets created for the wildlife here.
 



Motopreserve

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
Agreed. It's just the latest technology for them to focus on. Certainly not worse than many that are already disrupting the wildlife.
 



Mactadpole

Mactadpole

Member
The authors are not saying drones should not be used and the article I linked clearly makes this statement as well. I have now read the paper and do have some concerns about their tests. Its a good first look but I would have done some things different. I can say the same about some of my own researcher projects and data collection methods in hindsight as well.

1. "We flew a small quadcopter UAV (3D Robotics) using a fully autonomous mission plan that loitered and circled approximately 20 m over the location of the bear (pre-programmed just before takeoff) during the course of a 5-min flight... minimum distance between the UAV and the target bear averaged 43 m (SE = 5.67)." - I think 20 m altitude hovering within ~43 m for 5 minutes is a bit low and long. That low and long would certainly get my heart rate elevated with fear of a fly-away right into me. If drones are going to be used for behavioral wildlife studies then researchers are going to have to fly at higher altitudes and utilize zoom lenses with a great stabilization system.

2. "Bears in this population live in a highly human-altered landscape (50% agriculture) and frequently encounter potential stressors (e.g., roads and agricultural fields, with associated noises from traffic and farm equipment) and therefore may exhibit lower stress responses and quicker recovery times than animals in populations that encounter human-related stressors less frequently." - While they may exhibit lower stress responses, they may also be quicker to show a response as a result of living in such a stressful environment. I could get into this further based on my observations of primates in human-inhabited areas where in some areas they are hunted and in others they are not.

The overall tone of the paper is good in my opinion. They fairly describe the benefits of drones for research while emphasizing that we must take into account the influence drones may have on our research subjects. Mine are plants and herps (amphibians and reptiles), so I'm not too worried but will need to think more about the effects on primates.

BTW - the paper is freely available so you can download and read for yourself.
 

Motopreserve

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
I don't think anyone is questioning their intentions. Just having a little fun.

Studying bears (and all creatures) is an interesting and worthy endeavor, and I'd probably be interested in the info gathered on the Bears themselves.

But I didn't need a study to tell me that a buzzing, foreign vehicle above their heads would probably freak them out. That part I can figure out all on my own :)
 

Mactadpole

Mactadpole

Member
Motopreserve said:
I don't think anyone is questioning their intentions. Just having a little fun.

Studying bears (and all creatures) is an interesting and worthy endeavor, and I'd probably be interested in the info gathered on the Bears themselves.

But I didn't need a study to tell me that a buzzing, foreign vehicle above their heads would probably freak them out. That part I can figure out all on my own :)
Click to expand...

I didn't take offense to anyones comments. Just wanted it to be clear that these researchers aren't out to get them banned.

However, I think we do need studies like this. Obviously the authors had an idea to use multirotors as an observation tool for bears and saw that they didn't appear to have a behavioral response when flying near them. Actually they had little to no behavioral response when the copter was actually over them. That's why with the biomonitors and gps tracker they were actually able to see that it does freak them out and results in elevated heart rate and increasing movement activity after the copter is gone. I agree they should have run the study at different distances from the bears though.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.
Top