Marking Wild Animals PDF

13
WILDLIFE MARKING TECHNIQUES
Nova J. Silvy, Roel R. Lopez, and Markus J. Peterson
INTRODUCTION.. . 339 Radioactive Markers .354

CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO MARKING 340 Transponders.. .. . 355
Questions to Consider .. ....................... 340 Tattoos .. . 356
Marking Permits . .................. 340 Tags .. . 356
Natural Marks. ...... 340 Ear . ........ 356
Marking as Individuals or Groups .. ...340 Wing . 358
Marking Without Capture . ............... 340 Other Appendages. . 359
Marking After Capture . ...342 Body .......... 359
NONINVASIVE MARKING TECHNIQUES ...343 Jaw .. .... 359
Neck Collars .. ...343 Branding .. . 359
Bands ... ..... 345 Hot-iron Branding ....... 360
Arm and Wing Bands .... . 345 Freeze Brandtng .......... ..360
Leg Bands .. .. . 345 Chemical Branding ......... 360
Nasal Discs and Saddles .. . 347 Laser Marking ....360
Backpacks, Harnesses. and Ponchos .. . 347 Tissue Removal ..... ..360
Trailing Devices . ...... 347 Feather Imping.. .. . . 360
Nocturnal Tracking Lights .. . 348 Feather Clipping .360
Tapes, Streamers, and Bells .. ...... 348 Fur Removal . 360
Tapes .. ...349 Shell Notching .. .. 360
Streamers .. .......... 349 Scale Clipping. .360
Bells .. ..350 Toenail Clipping . ...362
External Color Marks .................................... 350 Toe Clipping ... .. ...... .362
Dyes . ..350 Ear Punching and Notching .... .362
Bleaching . ..351 Web Punching. . 362
Fluorescent Pigments ............. 351 Tai! Clipping.. ..... .... ...... . 362
Inks.. .. . ...... 351 Skin Transplantation .. . 363
Paints .. ...351 Amputation . . 363
INVASIVE MARKING TECHNIQUES .... . 351 SUMMARY .. . 363
Internal Markers .. ...351 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . 363
Chemical Markers . ...352 LITERATURE CITED .. . 363
Particle Markers ....... ............... 354 APPENDIX . . 376
INTRODUCTION and amphibians, respectively. Spellcrbcrg and Prest:

(197R) and Fitch (19R7) reviewed method, for marking
All captive-animal and many field studies involving snakes. Marion and Shamis (1977), the American
wildlife require individuals be marked for future identifica- Ornithologixt-,' Union (19RR), and Calvo and Furness
tion. Marked indix iduals can provide detailed information (1902) reviewed marking methods for birds. The
on population dynamics, movement. behavior. ami density American Society of Mamrnalogists ( 199X) pre» idcd gen-
estimates. We provide an overview of factors that should eral guidelines for marking mammals. Barclay and Bell
be considered before deciding to mark vertebrates (exclud- (198Rl gave detailed information fur marking hats.
ing fish), and address factors relevant to the selection of Although not covered in this chapter. overviews for mark-
appropriate procedures. Others have addressed these ing fish were provided by Wydowsky and Emery ( 19X3)
issues previously. Stonehouse ( 107H) described general and Parker et al. (ll)0()). Hagler ami Jackson (2()O I) pro-
marking techniques for animals, and Murry and Fuller vided an excellent overview of current techniques for
(2000) reviewed effects of marking on vertebrates. marking insects.
Marking rnethod-, for amphibians. reptiles, birds. and Because of the wide diversity among vertebrate <pccic«,
mammals were rev icwed by N ietfeld ct al. (1004). JlO single list of approved methods for marking i.s pruct icul
Methods lor marking amphibians and reptiles have been or desirable. The ultimate responsibility for the ethical and
reviewed by Woodbury (1056), Thomas (1077), and scientific validity of methods used rest- with the invcstiga-
Swingland ( 107R) whi Ie Ferner ( 1070) and Donnelly et ul. tor. In general, natural marks have the least adverse effect
(1994) reviewed marking methods .specifically for rcpti les on individual animals and should be used whenever possi-
339
340 Wildlife Marking Techniques
ble, whereas invasive techniques have the greatest potential tions for more detailed information on the method's appro-
for adverse effects. Moreover, many techniques require priateness for the specific application.
capture, recapture, and handling of animals that also might
affect their behavior and survival. Separation of these Marking Permits
effects from those caused directly by the marking method Before an animal can be captured and marked. the
has yet to be evaluated in most cases. appropriate local (e.g .. animal welfare permits). federal.
and/or state/provincial permits must be obtained. Wildlife
CONSIDERATIONS PRIOR TO MARKING species are regulated within state/provincial borders by the
appropriate wildli lc agency. The federal government reg-
Questions to Consider ulates capture and marking of migratory birds and threat-
Before attempting to mark free-ranging wi ldlife, the ened and endangered species. Authorization to mark
following checklist of species and situation-dependent migratory birds and threatened and endangered species
questions should be considered. must be approved by the Bird Banding Laboratory. U.S.
Geological Survey. Biological Resources Division. Laurel,
I. Do the animals need to be marked or can natural Maryland 20708-9619. USA. or the Canadian Bird
markings be used instead') Banding Office. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa.
2. Do the animals need to be marked as individuals or Ontario, Canada KIA OH3.
can they be marked as a group')
3. Do the animals need to be physically captured prior Natural Marks
to marking or can they be marked without capture') The first questions to be considered when contemplat-
4. How visible do the marks need to be and do the ani- ing marking animals are: (I) is marking necessary. (2) can
mals need to be "recaptured" for the mark to be the study be conducted without recognition of individuals
observed? or a specific group of animals. and (3) if not. can animals
5. Will the marking method cause pain and/or be identified without usc or appl icd marks? Perhaps the
decrease survival of the animal') ideal method of recogniving individuals is to usc their own
6. Will the proposed mark affect the animal's health, "naturally" occurring unique traits. much as we identify
reproduction, movement patterns. and/or behavior? other people by their physiognomic traits. Humans may be
7. How long will the mark be required to last to com- unable to differentiate individuals within some wildlife
plete the study and how durable is the proposed species. hut there arc others whose physical characteristics
marking method') allow for individual identification using natural markings
8. Will the proposed marking method interfere with or distinct morphological characteristics. Many animals
other studies? exhibit unique coat patterns (Table I) or can be identified
9. Will the marks promote public concern about the by unique color patterns (Fig. I). scarring. lin or fluke
study and will the marks have to be removed after notches, antler configuration, and/or other traits. Natural
study completion? markings arc most efficiently used on individuals with
10. Have the appropriate approvals (animal welfare complex patterns. and analysis must be confined within a
and state and/or federal permits) to mark the ani- local population or region (Pcnnycuick 1(78).
mals been obtained') Natural markings have been used to identify individual
mammals. reptiles. and amphibians more commonly than
Considerable thought should be given to these questions birds (Table I). Unique plumage or bill patterns can be
before the decision to mark wildlife is made. Techniques used as distinguishing features for birds. but such features
for marking wildlife fall into 3 main categories: natural, are rare in avian populations and may change with molt
noninvasive, and invasive marks. If natural marks cannot and/or age. Thus. the potential for natural marking sys-
be used, noninvasive marks are preferable over invasive tems in birds is limited. but may have short-term applica-
marks. Although some marking techniques may be unique tion in conjunction with other markers for some species.
to a single species, most apply to a wide variety of species.
Therefore, unlike previous chapters on this subject in The Marking as Individuals or Groups
Wildlife Society's "Techniques Manual," we present mark- If a study requires the usc of applied marks, do the ani-
ing information by methods. This has eliminated most rep- mals have to be marked as individuals or can they be
etition inherent in presenting this information by animal marked as groups') Many herd/flock movement and dis-
classes (i.e., amphibians. birds. mammals, and reptiles; persal studies only require that large numbers of individu-
Nietfeld et a1. 1994). We consolidated general information als be marked in a given area and relocated later. For
on proper application of the technique, its retention time example. large numbers of white geese could be marked by
and visibility, and any adverse effects of the technique on placing dye in roost ponds and followed by searching for
marked animals (where this information is available). This colored geese. Similarly. many mark-recapture or mark-
allows the reader to more easi Iy evaluate and compare resight studies conducted only to estimate population den-
individual methods. Additionally, we present these meth- sity do not require that marked individuals be differentiat-
ods in sequence of what we consider most to least pre- ed from another.
ferred. More detailed information. such as species or
group, comments, and citations (in chronological order), is Marking Without Capture
presented in tables. This allows readers to select an animal Capture may stress animals and marking without cap-
class, identify which methods have been used for the ture is preferred where practical. Remote marking of ani-
species or group of species of interest, and pursue the cita- mals as individuals or groups has a long history (Table 2).
Wildlife Marking Techniques 341
Fig. 1. Unique -'rots aml stripes Oil 2 bobcurs.
Table I. Natural markings used to identify individual animals a
Group/Species Method for identification Citations
Amphibians & Reptiles

Grass snakes Ventral patterns Curlstrom and Edelstum 19..((1
Viviparous lizard Dorsal patterns Carlstrom and Edelst.un 19..(6
Slow-worm lizard Throat patterns Carlstrom and Edelstum 1l)"(6
Smooth newt Belly patterns Hagstrom 1l)73
Anoles Distinctive patterns and rai I regenerations Stamps 1973
Warty newt Belly patterns Hagstrom 1')73
Eastern newt Dorsal spot pattern Healy 1975
Dusky salamander Dorsal color patterns Forester 1977: Tilley 1977. 19XO
Snakes Distinctive characteristic on exuvia Henley 19X I
Snakes Characteristic of subcaudal scales Shine et al. 19XX
Spotted salamander Spot pattern I.oafman 199 I
Patterned amphibians Spot and stripe pattern Doody 1995
Birds
Bewick's swan Bill patterns and body features Scott IlnS
Osprey Using head marking patterns Bretagnolle ct al. 1994
Mammals
Giraffe Unique coat patterns Foster Il)66
Tiger Unique coat patterns Schaller 1967. Karanth 19')5. Kuranth and
Nichols 1995
African lion Identified by whisker patterns Pcnnycuick and Rudnai 1l)70
Black rhinoceros Unique car markings. horn shape and wrinkle patterns Mukinya 1')76
Cetuccans/rnnnureex Unique color. scars. and fin or fluke notches WLirsig and WLirsig IlJ77. Irvine ct al 19S2.
Irvine and Scott 19X..(
Urban dogs Unique coat patterns Hcussner ct at. 1,)7X
African bush buck Unique coat patterns Seydack 19S4
Leopard Pelt characteristics Scydack Il)X4
Bobcat Spot variation Rolley 1987. Heilbrun ct al. 2003
Cheetah Pelt characteristics Caro 19')..(, Kelly 20() I
White-tailed deer Antler, pelt. and body characteristics Jacobson et 'II. 19<)7
a Scientific name.' are in the Appendix.

Table 2. Remote marking methods used to mark animals" as individuals and in groups.
Group/Species Remote marking method Citations
Birds
Sage-grouse Aniline dyes in tank buried on lek attached to spray head Moffitt 1942
Ruffed grouse Aluminum and bronze dust in nests found later on Rende II and Fow le 1950
shed feathers
Glaucous-winged gull Thief detection powder on eggs and nests Mossman 1960
Nesting terns Blow dye from bottle using rubber tubing Moseley and Mueller 1975
Nesting wood ducks Rubber band with color marker in nest box hole Heu-mann ct al. 1975
Cattle egret and gull eggs Rhodamine B dye in oil-based silica gel placed on egg,: Paton and Pank 19S6. Cavanagh et al. 1992
adults marked 2-6 month,
Roosting bluckbirds Aerial application of liquid fluorescent pigmented Otis et al. 19S6
material. visible under UV light in subsequent
collections of marked birds
Wood stork Pressurized canister with nOlZle on pole with control lever Rodgers 19Sfl
Waterfowl Fluorescent particles applied to lakes marked waterfowl Godfrey cr al. 1993
for R weeks
Common tern Device using refillable bottles filled with dye. remotely Wendelin et al. 1996
control leu
Mammals
Deer Treadle-type spray devices Clover 1954
White-tailed deer Self-allixing collar Venne 1962. Siglin 19hfl, Taylor 1969
Mountain sheep Manually-triggered dye-spraying device and modified Hansen 1964. Simmons and Phillips 1966
Cap-Chur darts
Moose Manually-triggered dye spraying devices Taber et al. 1956
Pronghorn Collar-holder frame over water Beale 196fl
Hares and rabbi ts Self-affixing collar Keith ct al. I96S
Dull's sheep Spraying devices used from aircraft Simmons 1971
Muskox Paint-pellet pistols Jonkel et al. I 'ns
Mountain sheep Modified Cap-Chur darts Turner 19S2
Elk Paint-hall guns Hcrrigcs ct al. 19S9, Herriges et al. 1991
Red squirrel Remotely applied collars Mahan et al. 1994
a Scientific names are in the Appendix.
Mammals have been marked with paint-tipped arrows (N. survival and behavior. (3) permanently mark individuals,
1. Silvy, unpublished data) and paint balls (Table 2). (4) be easy to recognize at a distance, (5) he easy to apply,
Animals also have heen marked using a manually triggered (6) be easy to obtain and/or assemble, and (7) be relative-
dye-spraying device, and dyes can be introduced into the ly inexpensive. Additionally, the selected marking tech-
animal's food to produce dyed fat, teeth, pelage, and drop- nique should not conflict with other studies in the area and
pings. Self-affixing collars have been developed for sever- permission to usc the techniques should be readily obtain-
al species (Table 2). Dye-spraying devices affixed to air- able from the appropriate authorities. Most marking tech-
craft have been used to mark large mammals and could be niques do not satisfy all of these criteria and investigators
used for marking large numbers of white-colored birds must prioritize prior to mark selection.
(e.g., white geese, egrets). Dyes also can he placed on Nietfeld et al. ( 1994) grouped markers into 3 categories
eggs and nests, marking the adults as they incubate their relative to retention time: temporary, semi-permanent. and
eggs (Table 2). Subsequent collection or observation of permanent. We prefer 2 groups: permanent and non-per-
marked animals provides data on dispersal and population manent. We define permanent marks as those lasting the
dynamics. life of the animal and non-permanent marks as all others.
Permanent marks include branding, tuuoos. car notching,
Marking After Capture toe clipping, and other invasive techniques although scar-
If animals must be captured, there are numerous mark- ring, tearing, and aging may reduce their effectiveness.
ing techniques available. Although the most suitable Non-permanent marks generally are more visible and can
marking techniques will depend on the need, of the inves- be used with permanent marks to increase visibility of the
tigator, Barclay and Bell ( 1988) suggested considering the animal. yet still have the animal marked for life. For exam-
following factors: duration of study, ability to relocate ple, a white-tailed deer (all scientific names are in the
marked animals, number of animals to be individually chapter Appendix) could be given a unique ear tattoo (per-
identified, and the effect of the mark on the animal. rnancnt) as well as a numbered, brightly colored cattle-ear
According to Marion and Shamis (1977) and Ferner tag (visible). Animal size, however, limits the size of
(1979), an ideal marking technique would: (1) involve marks that can be applied, but color-coded marks still can
minimal pain or stress, (2) produce no adverse effects on enhance recognition. A point to remember when using
Table 3. Neck collars used on wildlife a
Group/Species Materials and comments Citations
Amphihians & Reptiles

American alligator Vinyl-plastic tape Chabreck 1965
Birds
Geese. brant. swans. Plastic collars of flexible vinylite, flexible plastic. Aldrich and Steenis 1955. Helm 1955.
ducks, and cranes rigid acrylic resin. and aluminum with or without Craighead and Stockstad 1956. Idstrorn and
leiters and numbers with retention up to 11 years Lindmcier 1956. Ballou and Martin 1964. Huey
on adult geese. hut should not he used on goslings 1965. Sherwood 1966. Lensink 1968. Macinnes
because few an: retained: icing not a problem et al. 1969, Fjetland 1973. Greenwood and Bair
with aluminum ncckbands. but collared birds may 1974, Koerner et al. 1974. Ankney 1975.
move from breeding areas Chahreck and Schroer 1975, Raveling 1976.
Maltby 1977, Craven 1979. Abraham et al.
1983. Zicus et al. 11,)83, Pirkola and Kulmaincn
1984. Hawkins and Simpson 1985. Zicus and
Pace 1986. Machines and Dunn 1988. Ely
1990, Samuel et al. 1990. Campbell and Becker
1991, Johnson et al. 1995. Castelli and Trost
1996. Menu ct al. 2000. Schmutz and Morse
2000
Game birds Colored plastic neckbands Taber and Cowan 196.~. Marcstrom ct al. 1989
Mammals
Foxcs Metal collar slit for expansion Sheldon 1949
Ungulates Plastic, aluminum. nylon fabrics. polyethylene Ealey and Dunnet 1956. Progulskc 1957.
rope with Ilags. rubberized machine belting. and Fashingbuucr 1962. Lightfoot and Maw 1963.
self-adjusting plastic collars for young Harper and Lightfoot 1966. Knight 1966.
Hawkins et al. 1967. Craighead et al. 1969.
Hanks 1969. Phillips and Nicholls 1970, Beale
and Smith 1973. Brooks 1981. Keister cr ul.
1988, Holzcnbein 1992
Hares Leather collar Hewson 1961
Polar hear Nylon webbing Lentfer 1968
African elephant Rubberized machine helting Hanks 1969
Feral goats Galvanized steel chain Rudge and Johlin 1976
Cetaceans and rnunarccs Rubberized be lt- White et al. 1981
Bats Spiral bird rings and kcychain collars Moran 1985. Wilkinson 1985
Coyote Vinyl plastic collars Gionfriddo and Stoddart 1988
a Scientific name-, arc in rhc Appendix.
color-coded marks is that many people arc red/green color- NONINVASIVE MARKING TECHNIQUES
blind. Therefore. selection of contrasting colors that can
be recognized at a distance by all individuals invol ved with Neck Collars
the project is important. Many different neck collars have been designed for
The use of marks can influence behavior. particularly field identification of free-ranging animals (Table 3).
color marks used on birds. and can increase predation Properly fitted collars (Fig. 2) should not restrict feeding.
(Kessler 1964, Burley et al. 19S2). The combination of circulation or breathing, or cause entanglement Collars
stress and mortality associated with capture and the affect may be fixed in size or expandable to allow for growth.
of the mark itself could decrease survival more than either Many neck collars arc placed too loosely on animals (Fig.
capture or marking alone. Thus. it is important to examine 2). A loose collar (especially if the collar has the added
whether necessary data can be obtained without use of weight of a radio transmitter) will slip up and down an ani-
marks. If not, researchers must ascertain whether marking mal's neck when it lowers and raises its head. This can
animals is likely to result in reliable knowledge that can be cause abrasions and possible open sores that can lead to
used to better manage the population. Further. they should infection and possibly death. [I' a collar is extremely loose,
realistically weigh the benefits of' this knowledge against the animal may get a foot caught in the collar as it extends
the discomfort or harm done to the individual animals. its front feet to stand from a bedding position. If a collar
There is no simple checklist that will delineate the most is placed too tightly around an animal's neck, the collar
appropriate marking technique(s) for all potential research may cut off blood circulation that can lead to tissue slough-
projects. ing, infection, and death. During the rut, necks of many
Fi~ 2. (),·,'rsi/cd ned collar (righl) that could allow animal to place leg throug h coll.u Collar -hould iit "HI~ around neck just below head (left).
male ungulates swell and collars must expand to allow for tic. Once a males neck returned to normal size after the
this swelling. Collars made with nylon clastic will allow rut, the Boltaron collar returned lo its normal shape and
expansion of the collar. Collars for fawns may be made reduced tension on the clastic straps. Collars were of 2
entirely of folded nylon elastic with lolds stitched together thicknesses (0.2 or 0.3 em Boltaron) and of 2 colors (black
with thread that breaks with pressure of neck growth and or white). Various colors of scotch-lite reflective tape in
allows the collar to expand with the growing animal (Fig 3). the form of numbers, letters, or other symbols were
Silvy (1975) developed Boltaron (thermal plastic) attached to collars for ready identification of Lien during
expandable collars (Fig. -+) for mall' white-tailed deer that both day and night. Radios were mounted (using dental
were 7.-+ ern wide and made to fit the neck contours of deer acrylic) OIL and antennas were either stainless-steel whips
of each gender in each age class. The open ends of the or copper wire embedded in the Boltaron collar.
"U"-shaped collars Cor female deer were riveted (brass Stainless-steel whips tended to break due to salt-water
split rivets) and no clastic straps were used (Fig. 5). etching: this was not a problem with embedded copper
Collar, for male deer had clastic straps on the inside that wire antennas.
were attached by rivets at the bottom of the ""U". Straps Typically, collars arc highly visible, but their longevity
passed through brass welding rod guides embedded in the depends on the material used, climate, and behavior and
open ends of the plastic collar permitted expansion and gender of the animal involved. Most studies report either
contraction. Because the weight of a radio package was on no or insignificant adverse effects of neck collars on breed-
the elastic strap" in the "U'<shapcd collars, the rubber in ing-related activities, social behavior, and physical damage
the clastic straps degraded over time and the collars beyond minor hair or feather wear and irritation. Neck col-
sagged. This problem was solved by design of a '"C"- lars on birds (Fig. (), however. have been observed to dis-
shaped collar with ends overlapping at the side of the neck rupt pair bonds, lower success in agonistic encounters,
with elastic hands to resist expansion that completely contribute to starvation, and increase mortality through
opened the "C'. This allowed the weight of the collar and severe icing. Icing is not a problem with aluminum neck-
radio to he supported hy the Boltaron and not hy the elas- collars, probably due to their conductive properties.
Fi». 3. Elu-r«. (expalldahle) radio collar ()II white-tailed deer tuwn. Fig. .i Expandable neck collar-, for male unuulatcs.
Fig, 5, \)()Il-~"palldahle ('<male ungul.u« IlL'Ck collar with holes tor hra,,- Fig 7. Stundard bun-end haUl" u"xl on lhe' Ie"s ,,\ birds,
split riv et-;
Arm and Wing Bands

The auachmcnr of hands to the lureurms has hccn the
Bands
most \\ idely u:..ed technique for marking bats and penguins
Metal hand, (Fig. 7) hearing an identification number (Table 4). Flipper bands, made initially of aluminum and
and return address are the oldest and most common more recently from monel metal and stainless steel. have
method or marking: wild birds (Table .:f). Although slate, been used on penguins. Several markers arc available for
and provinces are required to use their own bands for resi- bats, including serially-numbered metal bands. color-
dent game birds. the U.S. Fish ami Wildlife Sen icc and the anodized aluminum hands. numbered and unnumbered
Canadian Wildlife Service issue hands for migratory birds. colored plastic hands. and celluloid rings. In bah. injuries
Aluminum bands arc sufficient for marking many species. caused by bands often result due to motion of the Iurcurms
but are easily damaged by abrasion and corrosion. As a during flight. Celluloid rings produce fewer injuries.
result. monel, incoloy, stainless steel. and titanium bands Bands attached to the bat's hack legs are not effective
sometimes arc used for long-lived and marine birds. markers due to hand loss.
Colored bands made from plastic or 01 her materials
have been u:..ed alone or in conjunction with metal bands Leg Bands
(Fig. 8) to mark individuals of a variety or species (Table The butt-end or split ring metal band i-; widely used for
4). Colored bands arc primarily intended 10 permit rapid most avian species (Table ·.fl. Lock-on band, are uxcd on
identification of individuals without requiring recapture. raptors and other birds capable of removing butt-end
Color bands deteriorate relatively quickly and arc best for bands. Rivet bands arc used for cagles. which arc capable
short-term studies. Sort plastic. wrap-around bands have of removing both butt-end and lock-on hands. Close-ring
the lowest durabil ity and color retention (Anderson 198 I ). bands often arc used to mark birds raised in captiv ity.
which is somewhat greater in laminated wrap-around Rands should tit properly. allowing movement. and
bands (Lumsden et al. 1l)77. Anderson 1(81). Retention is young birds may be ringed with the aid of wax or other
higher in wide \CrSLl~narrow plastic bands. Painted bands materials that yield with growth. Morrow ct al. (1987)
are of limited lise because abrasion or paint removal by developed equipment to return nestlings t\) their tree nest
birds results in rapid marker loss (Chi lds 1(52). following flushing and banding. Birds can mutil.uc and
Fi~, 8. Bun-end aluminum band (righliq:) alld cDlore'd plaslic h,"\u licit
Fig. 0, Plastic neck collar Oil tundra swan. leg) placed on greater prairie-chicken.
•
Table 4. Bands used on arms. wings, tails, and legs to mark wildlife ".
Group/Species Materials and comments Citations

Frogs Butt-end bird bands on toes Kaplan 195X
Bullfrog Plastic waist bands Emlen 19611
Lizards Colored metal rings around thigh Subha Rao and Rujabai 1972
Racerunners Colored plastic bands glued to tails Paulisscn 19X6
Anuruns Waist bands Rice and Taylor 199]
Birds
Passeri nes, terns, doves, Butt-end metal bands Young 1941: Wandell 194],1045: Elmes 1055:
pheasants, grouse, Dunbar 1950: MacDonnld 1061: Kuczynski and
vultures, parakeets, Kiel 1963: Hamerstrom and Mattson 1064: Henckel
geese, parrots. and 1976: Burtt and Tuttle 19X3: Hatch and Nisbet
swallows 19113(/, I): Nislxt and Hatch 19X.~. 19X5:
Bailey et al. 19X7: Marcstrom ct al. 19X9:
Meyers 1994: Powell ct al. 20(lO: Menu et al. 2001
Penguins Flipper bands of aluminum, Teflon, monel Sladcn 1952. Penny and Siaden I 96(J, Cooper and
metal, and stainless steel Morant 19X I, Sallahcrry and Valencia 19X5
Waterfowl Plcxiglass. butt-end leg bands Balham and Elder 195]
Doves and waterfowl Reward bands give higher reporting rates Bellrose 1955, Tomlinson I ')6X, Hcnny and Burnham
1976. Nichols cr al. 1991, Reinecke cr al. 1992
Raptors Butt-end and lock-on (can only be removed by Berger and Mueller 19(J(), Environment Canada
eagles) leg bands 19R4. Robson 19X6, Young and Kocher! 19P,7
House sparrows Colored tape around metal leg bands Gullion 1965(/
Finches and grouse Colored anodized and aluminum butt-end Gullion 1965". Cohen 1969. Godfrey 1975, Stedman
leg bands 1990
Small birds Nylon wing tag fastened with a strap around the Hewitt and Austin-Smith 1066
humerus
Captive birds Close-ring leg bands put on nestlings Cohen 1969. Godfrey 1975
Finches. geese, oyster- Colored leg bands can affect mate selection. sex Marin 1%3: Ogih-ic 1972: Wheeler and Lewis 1972:
catchers, loons. cranes, ratio of surviving offspring, and longevity Reese 1980: Burley I ,)X2: Burley et al. 19'1',2: Goss-
woodpeckers, juncos. Custard et al. 1082: Forsman 19X3: Seguin and
owls, blackbirds, Cooke 19X3: Burley 19'1',5: Hoffman ILJX5: Burley
magpies, & goldfinches 1986(/, b; Ratcliffe and Boag 1987: Strong ct al.
10X7: Burley 19XX: Hagan and Reed 19X1l: Cristol
et al. 1902: Met? and Weatherhead 190]: Forsman
et al. 1996: Watt 2()O I
Gulls Butt-end. color leg bands, and rings Mills 1972. Kadlec 1075, Spear 1080. Ottaway et a!.
I,)R4, Shedden et al. 1985
Raptors, ravens, and Color fabric wrapped around wing Kochert 1973, Morgcnwcck and Marshall 1977,
woodcock Kochert et al. 19~n
Ducklings Florist's wax or plasticine tilled leg bands Spencer 197'1',: Blum- ct al. 1904, 1999
Seabirds and sandpipers Butt-end and color leg bands: banding tibia rather Anderson 19XO. Perdcck and Wassenaar I ,)R I, Zmud
than tarsus increases longevity and legibility 19X5, Colclough and R.oss 1<)'1',7,Reed and Oring
190], Bart ct al. 2()O I
Mammals
Bats Bands cause injuries and neonates need room to Davis 1,)63h, Perry and Beckett 1966. Cockrum
grow; best attached to forearm as bands are 196,). Bonaccorso and Smythe 1972, Bateman and
ineffective if attached to hind leg or pollex: do Vaughan 1974, Bonuccorso ct ,II, 1976. Bradbury
not band during hibernation as populations 1977. Laval et ,11,1977, Morrison 1975, Stebhings
decline 1978. Keen and Hitchcock I 98(), Hooper 19X],
Moran I,)X5, Phillips 19X5, Ral'l:~y and Swift 19X5.
Bell et al. 19R(). Barclay and Bell 19X1l
Small rodents Leg rings Fullagar and Jewell 19(15
Elephants Plastic tail collar Viljoen 1,)1l6
a Scientific names are in the Appendix
remove bands, and loss of bands has occurred from Vultures. which excrete down their legs, should not be leg
nestlings, The main causes of loss of leg bands, however. banded as excrement loading of the hand can lead to loss
are abrasion and corrosion from saltwater and feces, of the leg or foot. Icc bui Ill-Lip Oil handed passerines in
Box 1. Shrinkage of spiral plastic leg bands

result in leg damage to mourning doves.
Recaptures of mourning doves banded with spi-

ral plastic leg bands revealed these bands were con-
stricting and resulting in loss or severe damage to
the legs (Atherton et al, 1982). Band color and tem-
perature affected band shrinkage. Dark colored
bands experienced greater shrinkage than light col-
ored bands. Higher temperatures caused bands to
shrink more than bands kept at low temperatures.
Acetone-treated bands fused coils of the band
together to help prevent shrinkage. Birds with
"fleshy" legs such as doves and pigeons should
have spiral plastic leg bands treated with acetone
prior to the birds being released.
Fig. 9. Nasal saddle on the hill of a female mallard.
cold climates also may cause impairment of leg movement of leather. Backpack markers also have been modified into
or leg loss. Colored plastic bands have caused severe leg ponchos. Back tagging typically is considered too cumber-
abrasions (Reed 1953). band constriction has amputated some for small birds. but a backpack marker that protruded
legs (Atherton et al. 1982) (Box I), and band displacement from the bird's back, making it more visible, has been used
can cause crippling in web-footed species. Leg-band loss to mark starling-sized birds. Numbered plastic circles
can lead to inflated mortality estimates and errors in esti- glued to the back of birds as small as hummingbirds have
mations of population size, especially for long-lived been used, but are lost during molt. Rope harnesses have
species (Nelson ct ul. 1980). been used to individually murk large mammals (Table 6).
Nasal Discs and Saddles Trailing Devices

Nasal discs and saddles (Fig. 9) have been used exten- Trailing devices have been used to study movements of
sively to mark waterfowl (Table 5). Nasal tags are gener- amphibians and reptiles with limited movement (Table 7).
ally made from rigid or flexible plastic or nylon, marked These devices usually consist or a freewheeling bobbin or
with patterns or numbers, and attached by a short nylon or spool holding thread or light string attached to an animal's
stainless steel pin through the nares. Discs may snag on body. In some aquatic situations, lines with floats are
vegetation and tangle in nets during trapping and probably attached directly to the animal. Bobbins have been glued
increase mortality of diving ducks (Table 5). Nasal saddles to an elastic band secured around the animal. or in the case
that properly fit the size and shape of the bill of particular of turtles, attached to the carapace with waterproof tape.
waterfowl species reduce such hazards. Entanglement in To study movements, one end of the line is secured to a
fences and traps has resulted in tag loss and icing on nasal stake at the point of capture and, as the animal moves, the
saddles may increase mortality. trailing thread is released along the route of" movement.
Usefulness of the device depends on the amount of thread
Backpacks, Harnesses, and Ponchos the bobbin or spool can hold and the speed and distance
Markers designed to lie on the back have been used fre- moved by the animal. The bulkiness or these devices can
quently to mark upland game birds, waterfowl, and other interfere with normal movement patterns and the waist-
birds (Table 6). Backpacks (Fig. 10) generally are made band attachment can cause skin irritation. These devices
from flexible plastics or plastic-coated nylon fabric and are have been used to study movement patterns both in terres-
attached by a leather or nylon cord harness that passes trial and aquatic systems. and to locate belowground depth
around each wing base. Nylon straps last longer than those of animals at night.
Table 5, Nasal discs and saddles used to mark waterfowl.
Tag type/Group Comments Citations
Nasal discs
Waterfowl Snagged on vegetation and tangled in nets used to Bartonek and Dane 1964, Shcrw ood 1966
trap ducks; tag loss high on geese
Nasal saddles
Waterfowl Less tangling than nasal discs, but icing may increase Sugden and Poston 1968. Doty and Greenwood 197-1.
mortality: fewer lost when saddles are sized to shape Greenwood and Rail' 1974. Joyner 1975. Greenwood
of hill; problems with small ducks due to large size 1977, Kooh 1981. Davey and I-ullagar 1985.
of saddles and shape of duck hill and nares Lokernocn and Sharp 1985, Evrard 19Xh. Byers 19X7
Table 6. Backp.uk». harucsses. and ponchos used to mark birds and mammals a
Croup/Mar" type/Species Citations

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bi[,tls
Brul.pnck: with .I//'Ii/i.1
G['a) partridge. grouse. and pheasant l.cather retained up to I year Blank and Ash 1956. Gullion er al. 1962.
Labixky and Mann 1962. Bong et al. 1973
American coot Leather retained I year Anderson 196.1
Smull bird-. Cumbersome for small birds Hester 1963. Furrer 1979
Bald eagles, falcons Could be seen from long distance Southern 1964. Kenward ct al. 200 I
/f({ck/){{ci- \ gil/cd Oil hac].
Gullcilic"s Circular numbered tag to synsacrum Cuthbert and Southern 1975
Hummingbird. Clued back tags Baltosser 1978
POll cli os
Grouse. parlridgcs, and pheasant Back tag modified into ponchos Pyrah 1970, Marcstrom ct al. 1989
Mammals
1/(//'1/1'.\.\('\
[,,'lTancs and dCLT Braided rope harness Bigler 1966
Nocturnal Tracking Lights late liquids and sealing the mixture in small, clear spheres
Light sources attached to animals allow them 10 he visu- that were glued to animals. Varying the proportions of this
ally trucked at night. providing information on movements mixture controls the brightness and duration of light emis-
and foraging behavior. Chemical and radioactive lights sion. Battery-operated "pin lights" and neon lights have
can he used alone or ill conjunction with radio telemetry been used for nocturnal observations of mammals (Table
8). Light intensity or blinking sequence can be varied on
(Table S). Evidence suggests that usc of optical light
sources docs nut increase predation of marked individuals neon lights for individual-animal identification,
or advcrsclv affect their behavior, although this potential A light-emitting diode (LED) and flasher have been
exists. COIl\ crxcly. marked prcd.uors might have less sue- used to track wildlife at night (Table 8). The device pro-
cess capturing prey and a COil stunt light source may cause duced consistently timed flashes that could be used for
undue ,tn:,,~ in bar-; individual identification. A similar system with individu-
Cyalumc, .1 chemical light source. has been used to ally programmable flashes, a light-sensitive flasher, and
monitor the activity or wildlife (Table ~h The light was optional attachment or a radio transmitter to the same cir-
obtained by mixing dibutyl phthalate und dimethyl phtha- cuit was later developed. Battery size and light source
intensity influenced the lifespan and visibility of the mark-
er. Usc of binoculars or night vision scopes greatly
increased the distance at which these markers could he
seen.
Betalights are a radioactive light source consisting of
phosphor excited by tritium gas in glass capsules. The
capsules can be produced in any shape and size with dif-
ferent colors. The useful range varies Irorn about 50 m to
I krn depending on shape, size, and viewing method, The
lifespan of Betalights is about 15-20 years. Acceptable
radiation levels should he considered when these light
sources are used. Colors at different intensities can be
used to increase the number or individuals identifiable,
Betalights have heen used on crabs (Wolcott 1977), birds,
and mammals (Table 8). For birds. the most effective loca-
tion for the Betalight was on a radio antenna away from the
bird's body. Betalights did not increase mortality of radio-
marked boreal owls. although hunting success could be
a [fcc ted ,
Tapes, Streamers, and Bells

Tapes. streamers, and bells have heen applied to ani-
mals to make them more readily detectable within the nat-
ural environment. Fluorescent tapes and bells also allow
the animal to be detected and located more easi Iy at night.
The effect of these methods on animal survival requires
Fiv. /0. Northern g(lshawk with backpack tag. further study.
Table 7. Trailing devices applied to amphibians and reptiles" to follow movements.
Group/Species Materials Comments Citations
Box turtle Wooden spool and thread with Attached to carapace with waterproof Stickel 1950
housing adhesive tape
Northern leopard Glued bobbin to clastic band 50 rn of thread lasted from I hr to 7 days: Dole 1965. Grubb 1970
frogs >60 mm around waist with stake to mark weighed 8.5 g: shortened jumping ability
point of capture with sewing and had difficulty swimming and entering
thread tied to it crevices. waistband caused skin irritation
Tiger salamander Sutured numbered plastic tloat through Line sufficiently long to allow individual Whitford and Massey 1970
tail with monofilament line to move through the deepest part of lake
Box turtle Thread trailer and radio transmitter Attached to carapace Lemkau 1970
Box turtle 35-mm film canisters to hold Attached to caudal end of carapace. Reagan 1974
wooden spool and thread avoided interference with mating
Green sea turtles Fiberglass-coated floats attached to No adverse effects reported Carr et al. 1974
24-m lines: 3-v tlashlight bulb
powered by batteries attached to
float: fiberglass ma-r topped by
orange pennant
Lizards Small piece of foi I attached 10 Allowed measurements of subterranean Deavers 1972. Judd 1975
30-cm light string around lower depth of lizards at night, located buried
abdomen lizards for body temperature readings
Turtles Low-friction thread-release Similar to spincast fishing reels Scott and Dobie 1980
mechanism
Tapes tion was used for each egg laid within a clutch. These
Colored tapes have been used to improve band retention markers were not lost prior to hatching.
and field recognition of birds (Table 9). Colored fabric, rip-
stop nylon, and reflective tape with or without coded num- Streamers
bers have been used to mark other animals. Highly reflec- Many types of streamers (Fig. II) and flags made from
tive plastic tape strips and plastic-covered tape with coded materials such as fluorescent plastic, polypropylene,
numbers were glued to the head of bats as temporary indi- polyurethane, hypalon, orthoplast, nylon-coated vinyl, and
vidual markers. Colored plastic adhesive tape was used as vinyl tubing have been used to visibly mark wild animals
a durable visual marker on the horns of mountain sheep and (Table 9). Nylon-coated fabric streamers were retained for
as a short-term marker on the quills of porcupines. Labels several months to years. Different lengths and color codes
on colored plastic tape have been used to mark individual provided a means of individual identification at a distance.
eggs in bird nests. The tape label was firmly applied to the Streamers often are attached to plastic or metal tags or col-
egg near the apex, and a different color or color combina- lars to increase animal visibi lity.
Table 8. Nocturnal light sources for tracking wildlife".
Group/Species Light source Comments Citations
Birds
Black skimmer Cyalume or light-emitting diodes Sealed plastic bulb on back Clayton et al. 1978
Long-eared owl Light-emitting diodes Studied nest behavior DeLong 1982
Boreal owl Betalights On radio antennas Hayward 1987
Mammals
Bats Pin light with battery Glued to fur Barbour and Davis 1969
Bats Cyalurne Glass spheres glued to fur Buchler 1976, LaVal et al. 1977
Mule deer Neon light with battery Neck collars Carpenter et al. 1977
E. Badger Betalights On radio transmitters Kruuk 1971l
Am. Beaver Light-emitting diodes Neck collars Brooks and Dodge 1978
Rabbits Betalights Attached to ear tags Davey et a1. 1980
Wallabies Light-emitting diodes Neck collars Batchelor and McMillan 1980
Rodents Betalights Glued on head Thompson 1982
Bats Cyalume in gelatin capsule tag and Miniature lightstieks provided equal or Hovorka et ;)1. 1996
lightsticks tag superior results

Bells have been used as short-term external markers to identify

Bcll-, have been used in conjunction with other individ- wildlife at a distance (Table 10). No adverse physiological
ual marking methods (e,g .. color-coded ear tags and col- effects have been reported for these markers when proper-
lars) to tacilitatc locating und monitoring movements of ly applied on mammals. For birds. no obvious behavioral
deer, collared peccaries (Fig, 12), and green iguanas (Table changes were noted other than temporarily increased
9). Periods or auditory observation or peccaries provided preening. Certain markings could disrupt pair bonding.
movement data comparable to those gained from telemetry however, and altered intraspecific recognition mechanisms
and allowed acti. iry patterns and habitat use of the animal in birds may severely alter social interactions (Rohwer
to be' identified. Hell" however, could attract predators, 1977).
External Color Marks Dyes

Dyes, fluorescent pigrucnt«. bleaching. inks. and paints Waterproof dyes should yield an easily recognizable
Table v. Tapc-, -rrc.uucr» and bells applied to wildlife" for individual or group identification.
Comments Citations
.vmphihiuns &
Rcpulc«
A111.ailigalor Flnihk chain 01 plavtic strip Beneath skin on side of tail. slow Chabreck 1965
all ached 10 anchor tag healing
Bullfrog Nylun \\ itistn:tnds painted with Recognizable up to 8-12 months with Emlen 1968
hlad~ numcr.il-, binoculars
Iglldnas/li/ards Colorc:d \'l\stik cloth tape Around neck Minnich and Shoemaker 1970
Green iguana Bell, on fishing line Around neck Henderson 11.)74
Spotted turtle Adhcxi. c \1 ith number- On carapace Ward et al. 1976
Arnphibiun-, & Colored Ileitl!;, Around neck N ace and Manders 1982, Fisher
lilard, and Muth 1989
Sk ink Prl'''UI\~ sClisili\l: tape Around neck Zwickcl and Allison 1983
Builirog Rellecti\ e tape Cemented to head Robertson 1984
Bird.s
Ph~asallt.s Plast ic ,I reamers. tags Attached to tail feathers. neck Trippenxee 1941. Taber 1949
Slill. grackle. Pl.i-ticivcd PVC tape Attached to leg Downing and Marshall 1959,
gull. and heron Carrick and Murray 1970,
Ilcslllllg,' Wi Iisteed and Fetterolf 1986
Wild turkcv, Leg <rre.uucr-, Attached on leg through slits in the Campbell 1960. Fankhauser
blackbird, marker or to bands 1964, Ttioma» and Marburger
t',III1s. \\alerl()wl. 11.)64, Guarino 1968. Arnold and
and raptor» Coon 1971. Royall et al. 1974.
Frcntress 1976. Platt 1980. Cline
and CI~lrk 1981
lJuli eggs Colored plaslic tape Attached to apex of egg Hayward 19S2
Mammal.
Deer .md collared Bcll-, Used to observe behavior Jordan and Papez
1958, Grucll
1963, Ellisor
and Harwell 1969.
Schnecgas and Franklin 1972
Gru, squirrel Pla>licilL'd PVC tape Attached around neck with slot and Downing and Marshall 1959
notch system
l'ngulates Colored strl'Cliner., of pla,..,tic. nylon. Attached to cars, horns, Achi lie,s Knowlton er ul. 1964. Harper and
und nv lou-coated fabril's tendons. or to other marking devices: Lightfoot 1966, Miller and
(I lcrcul i rc. Saflag. or Annortite ). some reluctance of docs to accept Robertson 1967. Queal and
and plastic car pcnnanr-, tagged fawns. but survival similar to Hlavachick 1908. Downing and
non tagged fawns McGinnes 1969. Jonkel et al,
1975, Ozoga and Clute 1988.
Panagi-, and Stander 19R9
Reflective plastic tape strips with Glued to head fur, temporary markers Willian», el al 1966. Daan 1969
numhcr-,
Polar bear Colored nagging tape Ear marker Lenrter J ()68
Cetaceans Srrcumcrs and Ilags Secured with steel barbs, nylon darts. Evans et al. 1972, Mitchell and
umbrella anchors, and anchor rivets Kozicki 1975, White cr al. 1981
Mountain sheep Colored adhesive tape On horns Day 1973
Porcupine? Colored tape or flags On the quills or radios Pigozzi 1988. Griesemer et al. 1999
,l Scientific names arc in the Appendix,

Fig 13 Colored dyc' being applied with brush to the" hire portion of" a
color. resist fading. and he nontoxic. harmless to plumage.
white-winged do\(' wing.
capable or usc with a wetting agent or solvent to ensure
quick penetration and coverage. and Iast acting in a cool
solution (Patterson 197~). Picric acid. Rhodamine B light influenced trail detection. This technique enables
Extra. and Malachite Green yield strong color and exhibit collection or detailed information on horne range. move-
good penetration and retention (Handel and Gill 19~.)). ment patterns. and habitat within a lew days. To increase
Avian species with light plumage arc most effectively the duration of this marker beyond the second night. cap-
marked with dyes. Dipping, brushing (Fig. U). and spray- sules containing pigments can he attached. A promising
ing have been used to apply dyes. To avoid hypothermia marker lor aquatic mammals i., a paste made from l1uores-
in cool weather. dye-marked birds should he thoroughly cent pigments. vehicle hinder, and SOIVCllt. It has visibly
dried before release. marked aquatic mammals for lip to 2 year" with no adverse
behavioral eflccts or ti",uc abnormalities. Codit white
Bleaching reflective liquid also has been used to mar" fresh-water
Bird feather, and mammal furs have been bleached and animals.
colored using human hair dyes or lighteners mixed with
hydrogen pcrox ide (Table 10J. Skin and feather damage Inks
can occur if t issue» are bleached at too high a temperature Ink has been used to mar" salamanders. terrapins. turtle
or for too long a period. Animals also may he susceptible eggs. iguanas. lizards. bird eggs. and deer (R. R. Lopez.
to hypo- and hypcnhermia during the bleaching process. unpublished data: Table 10). On deer, in" proved superior
to paint for duration and visibility. Marking pens have
Fluorescent Pigments been used to number eggs within clutches. No harmful
Trapped animals have been dusted with fluorescent pig- effects were observed, hut marking pens should he used
ments so that a fluorescent trail can be traced using ultra- with discretion until possible embryo toxic effects are eval-
violet (UV) lamps the following night (Table 10). The uated.
amount of vegetation cover. precipitation, and ambient
Paints
Liquid and spray paints usually are applied to the skin.
pelage. horns, or feathers (Table 10) and persist for a few
weeks to several months Individuals must he repainted. as
paint is lost due to shedding. molting. and grooming, How
these marks influence the behavior of species for which
colors have seasonal social significance is unknown.
Paints should he dry before animals arc released.
INVASIVE MARKING TECHNIQUES

Internal Markers
Chemical. particle. and radioactive markers have been
injected or (cd animals to either physical mar" individual
animals or groups of animals (some chemical markers) or
to detect byproduct» from marked individuals (fecal mark-
Fig I~ Bcll <lItlched 10 collared !,c(c'ar, thai allow, imc,tigator, [0 1'01· ers). These methods require animals to be captured prior
low herd movements. to marki ng.
Wildlife Marking Techniques
Table 10. Dyes, paints, stains, pigments, ink, and bleaches used to externally mark wildlife a.
Amphibians &
Reptiles
Tortoises, turtles, Colored paints On carapace of tortoises and on Woodbury and Hardy 104S. Pough
and snakes rattles or head of snakes 1066. Bennett et al. 1070. Bayless 107S.
Medica et al. 1975. Bennion and Parker
1976. Parker 1076. Brown et al. 10S4
Terrapins Ink Injected into skin Burger ami Montcvccchi 1975. Burger
1976
frogs and tadpoles Neutral red, whole-body dye Some immediate deaths and Herreid and Kinney 1966. Guttman
affected growth and Creasey 197:'. Travis 19S I
Lizards Paints/indelible pencil/felt- Lost with shedding; survival same Tinkle 1967. Jenssen 1970, Stebbins
tipped pen as toe clipping and Cohen 197.'- Tinkle 1973.
Henderson 1974. Vincgar 1975. Fox
1975. Jones and Ferguson 19S0.
Simon and Blssingcr 19SJ
Salamanders Fluorescent pigments Good for short-term studies Taylor and Deegan 1982. Nishikawa
and Service 19S5. Ireland 199 I
Frogs and toads Panjet dye Lasted up to 2 years Brown 1997
Juvenile frogs Tetracycline bath Failed as marker Hatfield et al. 200 j
Birds
Small birds. Dyes Visibi lity up to 2 km Buus 19JO. Price 1931. Wadkins 1945.
ducks. gulls. Jones 19S0. Winston 1955. Kozlik et
pheasants. eagles, al. 10S9. Ellis and Ellis 1975. White
swifts. terns. et al. 19S0. Malucarne and Griffa
geese. swans. 19S7. Underhill and Hotrneyer 10S7.
and blackbirds Paullin and Kridler 19S8. Belant and
Seamans 199_\
Ruffed grouse, Printer's ink Lasted up to 12 months for cattle Bcndell and Fl)\\ Ie 19S0. Boss 1963.
cattle egrets. and egrets with no harmful effects to Sieg.fried 1971. Olsen et al. 19S2
bird eggs eggs
Mourning dove Model airplane paint and spray Preening resulted in feather loss: Swank 19S2. Frankel and Baskett
and northern paints pair-bond disturbance 1963. Goforth and Baskett 1')6S.
cardinals Dickson ct al. 19S2
Mammals
Squirrels. deer. Dyes (Gentian violet, Biebrich Ear tags and toe clipping best for Baumgartner 1940. Fitzwater 1943.
terrestrial scarlet. picric acid. Nyanzol A, long-term marking Wehb 1943. Hansen 1964. Simmons
mammals, and Rhodamine B, Woollite. 1971. Day 1973. Brady and Pelton
pinnipeds clothing and aniline. and human 1976. Bradbury 1977. Gentry 1979.
hair dyes with peroxide or hair Pitcher 1979. Johnson et al. 19S I,
bleach) Gentry and Holt 19S2. Henderson and
Johanos 19S5. Hurst 19S5
African elephant. Paints, paint-sticks. and spray Applied to hide. horns. or pelage: Pienaar et al. 196(). Hanks 1969.
bovids, bats, paints must remain dry for IS-30 minutes Watkins and SL'hevill 1976, Gentry
antelopes, and and Holt ILJS2. Clausen ct al. 19S4.
aquatic mammals Irvine and Scott 19S4. McCrackcn
19S4
Seals and small Fluorescent pigments Adequate for <2 yeal'.'; for seals and Gribcn ct ul. 19S4. Lemen and
mammals small mammals dusted after Freeman 19S5. Boonstra and Craine
trapping; trail followed with UV 19S(l. Dickman 19S5. Mullican 19S5.
lamps Mikcxic and Drickhamcr 1092. Stapp
et al. 19')4
Woodrat, rats, Capsule containing tluorescent Long-term tracking and trai I Goodyear I ')S9
and pangolin dust deposition
Chemical Markers reasonably permanent marker for amphibians (Table II).

Organic stains placed in the tail-fin cavity or caudal During metamorphosis, the mark was reabsorbed with the
region with a hypodermic needle have been developed as a tail with no i.11effects.
Table 11. Internal particle and chemical markers used to study wildlife ".
Amphibians &
Reptiles
Salamanders 2: J Liquitex acrylic polymer to Injected into the lateral. proximal. Woolley 1973
distilled water caudal region
Salamander Fine grained fluorescent Administered with heated probe: Ireland 1l)7.\
larvae pigments mixed as paste short-term tag
Frog and 21 :20 ratio of mineral oil to Tail fin cavity with a 22-gauge Seale and Boraa-, 1l)74
salamander larvae petroleum jelly and stains (Oil hypodermic needle, no effect on
Red A and Oil Blue M) animals
Birds
Duck and Food dyes Injected into egg: hatched young Evans 1951, Rotrcrruan and Monnett
passerine eggs marked for few days 198-+
Bait-consuming Microtaggants (small, color- Fed in baits Johns and Thompson 1l)7l). Nictrcld ct
birds, raptors coded plastic particles) al. 19l)-+
Bait-consumers Iophenoxic acid and Mirex Iophenoxic acid ineffective Larson ct al. 1l)81
Waterfowl Tetracycline Injected; detected in eggs: egg- Haramis el al. 198.'1. Eadie cr ul. 1l)87
laying rate decreased
Mammals
Small mammals Dyes in food To mark fat, teeth, pelage. and feces New 1l)58, 1951): Kindel 1%0: Nas,
Observed in urine on snow and Hood 1969
Cottontail rabbits Dye pellets placed under skin Fed in baits: more intense in Brown 1%1
mandible and teeth and in young
animals
Coyote, rodents, Tetracycline group Force-fed beads Owen 1961. Yagi et al. 196.'. Linhart
skunks, raccoon, and KenneIly 1%7, Crier 1l)70.
seals, dolphins. Nelson and Linder 1l)72. Best 1l)76.
whales. bears, Geraci ct al. 1986. Garshelis and
and white-tailed Visser 1l)l)7, Taylor and Lee 19l)4.
deer Van Brackle et al. 1l)94
Collared peccary Glass beads Accuracy with field ID Sowls and Minnamon 1l)63
Ground squirrels Nyanzol A and D fur dyes Picric acid worked best Melchior and Iwcn 1')65
Snowshoe hares Picric acid and Rhodamine B Fecal tracer: for <30 days Keith ct al. 1968
Nutria Codit white retlective liquid Fecal tracer Evans ct al. 1971
Nutria Powered aluminum pigment Stained fat deposits Evans et al. 1971
Rats and rabbits Sudan black, orally Fecal tracer Taylor and Quy 1"J7J. Cowan ct al. 1984
Rabbits and Rhodamine B Fed in baits Evans and Griflith ILJ7.\: Morgan
Virginia opossum 1981: Cowan ct :II. 1984, 1987
Bait consuming Fl uorescent acetate floss f bers Systemic marker, produces Randolph 197-'. Johns and Thompson
mammals fluorescent banding of claws and I 97LJ, Cowan ct al. 1984
hair
Coyote, gophers, Rhodamine B Fluorescent in blood Ellenton and Johnston 1975. Johns and
and mountain Pan 1981. Lindsey 1983
beaver
Rats Quinacrine dehydrochloride Fed in baits Johns and Pan ILJB I
Bait-consumers Microtaggants Fed with bait Johns and Thompson ILJ79
Dogs and foxes lophenoxic acid Fed with bait Bacr et al. 19~5. Follmann et al. 1987
Coyote Chlorinated benzenes Johnson et al. Il)LJ~
Rhodamine B taken orally acts as an internal marker. temic marker may be limited to certain periods or the year
coloring the gall bladder, gut, feces, urine, and oral and uro- in birds, because banding probably ()CCLlr~ only in actively
genital openings producing fluorescent banding of feathers growing tissue. Rhodamine B has been used to detect bait
in birds (Table II). These bands were most evident in pri- consumption, density estimation. and examination of
mary and secondary feathers. Rhodamine B may become movements. Fisher (1999) summarized the literature on
visible within 24 hours of dosing and persist for several Rhodamine B and concluded the long-term effects of a sin-
weeks. Scanning for tluorescence using portable UV lamps gle dose and the short succession of low dose on live ani-
allows trapped animals to be examined and released imme- mals should be investigated. She recommended
diately, thus, reducing stress. Use of Rhodamine B as a sys- Rhodamine WT as an alternative systemic bait marker.
Ccrtui n member, 0 I' the tctracyc line rami Iy of antibi- taggants, tloss fibers are quantitative. nonpersistent mark-
otic-, given orally or intravenously. combine with calcium ers. Floss fibers do not affect bait palatability and are more
in bone, and teeth or mammals and egl!shells or birds to economic than microtaggants. Powdered aluminum
produce a characteristic yellow fluorescence under UV placed in baits also has been used as a fecal tracer.
light (Table II), Tetracycline, are persistent, quantitative
markers that can cross the placental barrier. They have Radioactive Markers
been used to obtain mark-recapture population estimates Radioactive tracers have been used to identify and
and to identil_\ thc percentage or predators that consumed acquire information on behavior of amphibians, reptiles.
baits. and mammals but have received little attention for birds.
Quinacrine dchvdrochloridc, a fluorescent chemical The 3 primary methods of marking animals with radioiso-
marker. can be detected in blood with Iluorornetric and topes are inert implants, external attachments. and metabo-
chromatographic .malyt icu l techniques (Tahle I I), lizable radio nucleotides (Table 12). Inert implants are suit-
lophenoxic acid. an iodine-containing compound. and able for monitoring specific movements, such as nest visits
mircx , an organochlorine pesticide. have heen used as by birds and small mammals, using a manual or automated
blood and tis.,ul: marker, for bait-consuming birds and detector (Griffin 1952. Bailey et al. 1973. Linn 1978).
mammal" Codit white-reflective liquid and Sudan black Radioactive wires, pins, and capsules containing isotopes
also arc ,ati,factory fecal tracers Ior most mammals, have been inserted subcutaneously in small rodents and bats
as inert implants. Radioactive material can be attached to
Particle Markers external leg bands and forearm tags, or the bands/tags can
Microiaggant», small plastic particle, that are coded by be made radioactive. Radioactive material also can be fed.
colored layers. do not cause bait aver-Jon. remain intact injected, or implanted into the animal in a metabolizable
ami. due to their lluorcsccut and magnetic properties, can form. These materials may be incorporated into the tissues
be readily rccux crcd [rom gut or fecal samples (Table II), of the animal, passed on to offspring, or voided in feces and
Fibers or lluorcxcent acetate no.'s ul-.o hale been tested for urine; thus, they can be used Ior many purposes besides
measuring bait con-umprion by birds and mammals and tracking (Linn 1978). This approach has been used to esti-
individual 111m cmcnt-, in small mammals. As with micro- mate population abundance of a number of species.
Table 12. Radi()i,otopc:., ll,c:d lor marking wildlife' ".
CJ (oup/S pccic-, Radi()a("tiYc~ material, Comrnerus Citation,
Amphihian-, &. R.~plilL"

TO,ICk <ul.uuandcr-, Coba!t injected Karlstrom 1957; Breckenridge and Tester
and ,nakc', 1961; Barbour et al. I969{/. b; Ashton 1975
:\orthern knee liv.ud ("lid In tubing around waist O'Brien et al, 1965
Sul.unandcr-, turtle'" Tantalum Injected. local ulceration in Bennett et al. 1970. Madison and Shoop
<kink-; liznrds; allLl salamanders 1970, Ward et al. 1976. Ferner 1979
snake
Sal.unandcr Ian aL' Sodium Injected Shoop 1971
[j i rd.,
Scuupalm.ucd plover Tantalum Radioactive-leg bands Grin-In 1952
Ring-ncLked ph~asant Calcium ID chicks from fed hens McCabe and LePage 195X
Manuu.il-,
Vob, Pho,phoru, lnjevtcd Miller 1957
13;1" & small lodinc lnjected. capsules on rings, Gifford and Griffin 1960. Iohanningsmeier
m.unmal-, implanted, or fed and Goodnight 1962
H,In C'i mic.: (loiLl Implanted Kaye 1960
Small mammal-, Cobalt Implanted or in capsule on rings Linn and Shillito 1960. Barbour 1963.
Schnell 1965
Small mummul-. Tuntulum Implanted Graham and Ambrose 1967. Schnell 1968
SI1);1IImammals ZinL' Injected. led Nellis et al. 1967. Schnell I96X. Gentry et
OP(»'lIlll. rubbii-; al. 1971. Pelton and Marcum 1975. Kruuk
Ioxc-, L, bctdger. et al. InO, Conner 19X2
bobcat. hl.uk bear
Iilac'k hear Magncsiulll Injected Pelton and Marcum 197:;

Sl1wll nuuumal-. Sulphur Passed through mother's milk Dickman et al. 1983
Rodcnt-, Radionuclide-, Mother-offspring relatedness and Tamarin et al. 1983. SL'OIl and Tan 1985
male reproductive success
Raccoon Cadmium Injected Conner and Labisky 1985
Coyotc-, Se\ era] tested Implanted Crabtree et al. 1989
.1 Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Table 13. Passive integrated transponders (PIT) used to mark wildlife a
Group/Species Comments Citations

Frogs, toads, alligators, snakes, lizards, Only 101' 111\ PIT tags failed, lasted up to Camper and Dixon 191\8, Brown 1997
turtles. sea turtles 2 years
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard l50 of 273 scanned successfully Germano and Williams 1993
Pine snake l)2ck retained PIT tags Elbin and Burger 1994
Neonatal snakes No effect on growth and movement Keek 1994
Rattlesnakes No effect on growth and movement Jemison ct al, 1995
Desert tortoises Detected as they entered culverts Boarman et al.l 998
Great-crested newt larval stage Up to 2 years Cummins and Swan 2000
Birds
Captive birds Success varied with species and year Elbin and Burger 1994
Northern bobwhite chicks 59" lost PIT tags Carver ct 'II. 1999
Mammals
Black-footed ferret 6 of 41\ failed Fagerstone and Johns 1987
Sea otter 6 of 6 successfully scanned Thomas et al. 1987
Big brown bat 17 of 17 successfu IIy scanned Barnard 1989
Mice 4 of 4 successfully scanned Rao and Edmondson 1990
Norway rat 10 of 10 successfully scanned Ball et al. 1991
Ground squirrels No effect on squirrels Schooley et al. 1993
Captive mammals Success varied with species and year Elbin and Burger 1994
Voles Used to monitor runways Harper and Batzili 1996
Naked mole rat Survival not different from toe-clipped Braude and Ciszek 1998
A major disadvantage of using radioactive markers is log signal when excited by a scanning wand that discharges
the restrictions imposed by state or federal regulations. electromagnetic energy. The PIT-tag reader displays the
These tags also can cause illness or death of marked ani- code and can store this information for later retrieval. PIT
mals, be lost, and constitute a hazard to other animals tags are implanted subcutaneously (Fig. 14) with a special
including humans. When selecting a radioactive marker, syringe and canula (needle).
one should consider availability, type of radiation, energy No adverse effects of transponders have been observed
levels emitted, physical and biological half-life, toxicity, in animals, but PIT tags are not as permanent as first
and metabolic characteristics (Pendleton 1956). thought; they can fail and be lost (Box 2). The major dis-
Transponders
Passive integrated transponder (P1T) tags have been
developed as permanent markers and tested on amphibians, Box 2. Passive integrated transponders (PIT)
reptiles, birds, and mammals (Table 13). The tags consist of should not be used as sole device to
an electromagnetic coil and a custom-designed transponder mark wildlife.
chip that emits a uniquely programmed alphanumeric ana-
Recent research using PIT tags to mark fox
squirrels provided a 17% unsuccessful scan rate
after a 3-month period since implantation.
Recaptured squirrels also were marked with radio
collars. In a separate study on pocket gophers
where PIT tags were the only mark used, only I of
the original 13 pocket gophers marked was ever
recaptured in I year of trapping. Loss of tags, tag
breakage, or trap avoidance by previously trapped
gophers were possible explanations for the low
recapture rate. However, because both the fox
squirrels and pocket gophers were tagged in the
nape of the neck and both species used areas (holes
is trees or burrows in the ground) that rubbed the
nape of the neck, this may have caused PIT tags to
be lost or crushed. We recommend that PIT tags not
be the sole marking device used to mark wildlife.
Fig. 14. Implanting a PIT lag into a radio-marked fox squirrel.
Table I~. Wikllitc:' marked w,mg r.uroo tcchniqucs.
Group/Specie, latt()o location Comments Citations
Amphibiun-, & R-eptik'

Snakes Skin Method was permanent Woodbury 1956
Frogs Skin ofthe venter Etched grooves with ink Kaplan 1955
American .liligatm Light skin under tail Legible for several months Chabreck 1965
Sal.unandcr SUbcUt'lllL'OUS FI uorcscent-clnstorner Davis and Ovaska 2001
Bmls
Ncstling 'tarling., Abdomen India ink dots using syringe Ricklefs 1973
Birds of prey Undcrvidc of wing Captive birds. long lasting Havelka 19S3
Mammals
Bdh Wing membranes Slow process Griffin 1934
I larc-. a IIII rabhit« Ear Used Franklin Rotary Tattoo Thompson and Armour 1954, Keith et al. 1968
Bear, Upper lip. ax il!a. or groin Permanent mark Lentfcr 1965, Johnson and Pelton 19S0
Dec r fav\ n-, Ear Permanent mark Downing and McGinnes 1969
Cottontail rabbit Ear Permanent mark Brady and Pelton 1976
Dolphinid-, !-"in Proposed only White et al. 19S I
European Badger Ingllin~d area Electrically-powered pen Cheeseman and Harris 19S2
Pcre Dcl\ id's deer Ear Permanent mark Carnic and Killrnar 19S3
Beluga whale Skill Unsatisfactory Geraci ct al. 1986
Rat-. allli mice I·.ar Permanent mark HOl1mClct al. 19S6
Marvupiul ) oung Pinnae Fluorescent pigments Soderquist and Dickman 19S5
Porcupinc-, Fur Not necessary with collars Griesemer et al. 1999
Rodents Suncutancou-, Chinese ink Leclercq and Rozenfeld 200 I
" Scientific n.unc-, ~II"C in the Appendix.
advantage 01" this s;,tem. however, is the reader must be used to inject contrasting dye (c.g .. green or black) (Table
close (kw ern: to the animal to record the code. which may 14). Small quantities of fluorescent pigments also have
necessitate recapturing the animal. Remote readings can been used to make tattoos that arc visible only under UV
be made (Table 13): a reader tube can be inserted into bur- light. Although tattoos generally cause fewer problems (no
rows or nesting cavities, or along travel routes, reading the added weight. inconspicuous to predators) than other
transponder number each time the marked animal passes. marking techniques, they have the disadvantage of requir-
ing animal recapture for identification. Tattoos often are
Tattoos used with more visible, but less permanent marking meth-
Tattoos provide an efficient mean, or permanently ods.
marking ,\ wide range Dr species (Table 14). Best results
are achieved by tattooing lightly pigmented areas free or Tags
hai r (i nsidc 01" car 1 Fig. I:) I. inside legs or arms. Iips) or Tags, as used here, differ from bands in they penetrate
feathers (under wings). Standard or rotary pliers. electric some part of the animal's body and generally inflect pain,
tattooing pencils. and syringes [illcd with ink have been at least during insertion. With amphibians and reptiles,
tags are usually placed through the shell, scutes, fore nip-
per. scales, tail fin, rattles, or tai 1 (Table 15). In birds, tags
generally are placed within the patagium of the wing or the
webbing of the root. Tags typically are placed within the
ear, webbing of foot, flipper, or dorsal fin of mammals.
Tag loss increases with time since tagging and may result
from infection, wear, grooming, or righting. Bilateral
placement of tags and using them in conjunction with more
permanent markers (e.g., tattoos) minimizes the chance of
losing the identity of an animal over a long period. Study
duration and required tag visibility are factors that inf1u-
ence tag choice. Many types of tags require recapturing
the animal for identification.
Ear
Tags, manufactured from metals and plastics (Fig. 16)
in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors with identifying
numbers stamped into the surface, arc commonly used for
fig. /5. \:ul1H:~ril.· l·h~lral'll'r..., laltl)l)l'd on till,' ill..,id(' or all car of a white- marking mammals (Table 15). Tag-closing mechanisms
laikcl cle'tT can be interlocking, self-locking, or a rivet design that can-
Table 15. Tags used to mark wildlife ".
Group/Specie- Tag type Citations
Amphibians & Reptile.,

Frogs, toau.' and Metal jaw tags Raney 19~O. Stille 1950. Hinh 1966
sna~es
Frogs and iunle-, Banus, rings, and plates fastened through Kaplan I95):{. LOI1J..eand Obbard 1977, Graham 1986,
holes in shell Layfick] et '11. IYXS
Am. Alligators Monel tag to dorxal tail scute Chuhrcck 1965
Snakes and turtles Button- to caudal musculature Pough IY70. Froese and Burghardt 1975
Sea turtles Monel metal and plastic tags in tore flipper l.chuffnnd Hcauy 1971, Bacon 197:1. Prncharcll976,
Bjorndal 1l)8{J, Pritchard 19XO. Frazer 1983. Balazs
19S5. Ec~ert and Eckert 19S9
Rattlesnake, Colored discs through rattie Peudlchury 191'2. Stark 198~
Tll1'tles Titanium disks held by adhesive Gaymer 11.)7:1
Hellbender Floy T-tags Nickerson and Mays 197:1
Tunles Wooden dowel in scute Davis and Sartor 11.)75
Snakes Colored beaus OIl line Hudnall 19S::'
Birds
Waterfowl Streamers pinned to head Gullion 1')51
Penguins Flipper band- made of aluminum. Teflon, Sladcn 1951. Penny and S laden 1966. Cooper and
monel metal. and .s(ainless steel Morant 19S I. Sal laherr. and Valencia 1985
Am. Woodcoc], Plastic neck tag attached with surgical clip Westfall and Weeden 1956
Waterfowl. turkey. gulls, Patagial t~lg using various materials to attach Anderson Il)6:1: Knowlton ct al. 196~: Mudge and
cranes, coot. willet. tag through patagiulll Ferns 1975: Tarhu 1979: Bartelt and Rusch 19S0:
\ ulturcx, blackbird-, Howe 19S0: Wallace: ct al. 19S0: Jackson Il)S::': Sel'l
large p.rs-.crinc«. wood- ct al. 19S::': Buker II.)S:1:Curtis et al. 19S:I: Southern
peckers, and pigeons and Southern 19S3. 1985: Sweeney ct al.19S5:
Sz ymczak and Ringclman II.)S(': Cumming» Il)S7:
Han and Hart II.)X7
Wood ducks, gull chicks. Fingerling fi,h tag' .utachcd to loot web Grice ami Rogers 11.)(,5:Alliston 11.)75: Haramis and
gee-;c, and ducklings in through hole In egg Nice 19S(): Ryder ami Ryder II.)SI: Seguin and Cooke
egg~ Il)S5: Blunls et al. 199~. 1991)
Mummul-
Bats Fing~rling car tags Mohr 193-1. Stebbings 1975
Rabbits, squirrel-. sea Plastic or metal ear tag with and without Tnppenscc 1941, Scheffer 1950. Tyndale-Briscoc
lions, deer, cnribou, lox. streamers 195,l. Labiskv and Lord 1959. Craighead and
goats. seals. bears. mice. Srock-tad 1960. Knowlton ct al. 196~. Miller 1964.
coyote. beaver. elk. porcu Harper and Lightfoot 1966. Miller and Robertson
pine. and moose calvcs 1967, Downing and McGinncs 1969. Larsen 1971.
Day 1973, Hubert et ul. Il!76. Rudge and Joblin 1976,
Hobbs and Russell 1l)71.).Stirling 1979. Warneke
1979. Johnson and Pelton 19S0, Bcusom and Burd
19lD, All et al. 1985. LeBoulcnge-Nguycn and
LrBoulcnge 1986. Gionfriddo and Stoddart 19S5,
Ostfcld ct al. Il)l!3. Griesemer ct ul. 11.)99. Swenson ct
al. 1999
Fox squirrel Fingerling toe tags. bands on toes Linduska 194::'. Cooley 19~5
Big gaille Plastic streamer through slit in car Craighead and Srocksrad 1')(,0
Hares. nutria. vca utter. Tags placed on hind-foot web or rear flipper Keilh et al. 19('S. Evalh et al. I'nl. Johnson 1979,
and veal pup, Miller 197,), Ames cr al. 19SJ. Henderson and
Johanos I ')SS
Cetaceans Plastic and holt tags to dorsal I'in Norris and Pryor 1970. Irvine e:t al. 19S2,Tol11ilin ct ul.
19S3
Di.scuvcry mark s and spaghetti tags (stain- Clar~c 1')71, Evan, e:t al. 1972, Mitchell and Kozicki
Ie" steel projectiles) shot from shotgun 1')75. Leatherwood ct al. 1976. Brown I')7S, Irvine
and Scott Il)S~. De LI Mare I9S5. Miyaxhira and
Rovlctt 19S5, Kasamarsu cr al. 19S()
a Scientific names are ill the Appendix.

Fig. 16 Plastic numeric numbered tags attached to both ears of a collared Fig. 17. Plastic .lomc stic livextock car tat! lhed OIl white-railed deer
peccary.
colorfastness arc functions of material composition and

not be easily pried apart once the rivet is flattened, Tags manufacturing (Nesbitt 197<). Young and Kochcrt 1<)87)
may be self-piercing (Box 3) or inserted through a hole with some materials lasting ~ 10 years. Tag los, generally
pierced with a knife or punch provided with the tagging is low the first year (Patterson 1978. Stiehl 1983 L but grad-
kit. Ear tags usually are placed on the lower, inner region ually increases in subsequent years (Patterson 1978).
of the ear characterized by heavier cartilage and where the Double pinning tags reduced marker loss. Streamers often
tag is best protected from being tom out. Tags should be are used with wing tags to make them visible at a distance.
loose enough to not interfere with blood circulation: punc- If used, they should be sufficiently large for observational
ture marks should be treated appropriately to prevent purposes, yet not so large a, to hinder night.
infection and ensure healing. Wing marker, often have no consistent effect on birds.
Aluminum, monel metal, and plastic tags available for although the initial adjustment period ranges from a few
domestic livestock (Fig. 17) work well on ungulates. days to 2 weeks. Light feather wear and putugiurn callus-
Fingerling fish tags have been used in the ears of bats since ing commonly have been noted. Severe abrasion has been
the 193(1s. These tags may not be suitable for large-eared observed occasionally with some species. and consistently
bats or species that exhibit rapid ear movement synchro- with falcons. Abnormal replacement of feather, may
nized with their echolocation emissions, or for medium- to occur and flight can be affected. Double pinning greatly
large-sized bats due to poor retention. Delrin button tags reduces feather abrasion and callusing. Reported effects of
are satisfactory for marking several species. wing markers on reproductive and social behavior also are
variable. For many species, no significant influence on
Wing fledging success was found when :2: I adult was marked
Wing tags commonly are used on birds (Table 15). (Young and Kochcrt 1<)87). However. reduced brood size,
They generally are made from flexible plastic-coated lengthened mean rcncsting interval. decreased social sta-
nylon fabric (Fig. 18), and rigid or upholstery plastic and tus, interference with migration. altered habitat selection,
attached through the patagium using a stainless steel or increased mortality. and effect, on parental behavior
nylon pin, pop-rivet, or the marker itself. Durabi lity and (Brubeck et al. 1<)81) have been documented. Saunders
Box 3. Placement of self-piercing metal ear tags

is important to retaining tags.
It has been our experience when using self-pierc-

ing metal ear tags on white-tailed deer, that place-
ment is important for retention of tags. Tags should
be placed near the base of the ear and the metal tag
should be flush with the edge of the ear. If space is
left between the tag and the edge of the ear, there is
greater probability that brush or other foreign
objects will become entangled in the tag and rip it
from the ear. The tag should not be so tight as to
roll the edge of the ear, but should be flush with the
edge of the ear. Care also should be taken not to
puncture any veins in the ear when applying the tag.
Fig. 18. Patagial-\ving markerv on a lc.r-! u-rn.

Table 16. Wildlife" marked using hot-iron. freeze, chemical, and laser branding techniques.
Group/Species Brand type Comments Citations
Amphibians &
Reptiles Hot iron Tortoises and turtles branded on Woodbury and Hardy 1945. Weary 1969.
Tortoises. snakes. carapace Clark 1971. Taber ct al. 1975
toads, frogs, turtles,
anoles, lizards. and
hellbender Freeze Tailed frogs branded on ventral Lcwke and Stroud 1974. Daugherty 1976.
Snakes, sea turtles, surface Ferner 1979. Bull ct al. 19S3
frogs. iguanas. and
salamanders Chemical Silver nitrate Thomas 1975
Anurans Laser Ruby laser Ferner 1979
Turtles and snakes Freeze Tail and rear foot pad Jennings ct al. 1991
American alligator
Birds Freeze Branded feather tracts and Greenwood 1975
Mallard duckling premaxillae
Mammals Hot iron Branded horns and/or body Aldous and Craighead 1955. Hanks 1969.
Mountain sheep, Ashton 1975. Summers and Wiuhamcs
African ungulates. 197R
seals, and bovids Freeze Branded body Newsom and Sullivan 1965. Farrell et al.
Livestock, lab 1969. Hadow 1972. Farrell and Johnston
animals. pets. white- 1973. Lazarus and Rowe 1975. Hobbs and
tailed deer. rodents. Russell 1979. Rood and Nellis 19S0.
squirrels, mongoose. Russell 19RI. Irvine et al. 19R2. Miller CI
seals, dolphins. al. 19S3. Pfeifer et al. 19S4. Sherwin ct al.
beaver. bats 2002
Explosive hot-iron Branded body Homestead et al. 19T!.
Seals device
Pressure stencil on Lasted for at least 2 years Tomilin ct al. 19S3
Dolphins dorsal tin
(1988) contended that patagial tags should not be used on Body

rare, vulnerable, or endangered species unless no other Metal and plastic tags have been used to tag the shells
marking technique would work. of turtles, rattles of snakes. scutcs or turtles and alligators.
tails of amphibians, and snakes (Table 15). With the
Other Appendages exception of turtles, other marking methods typically are
Tags designed for marking ears also have been used to recommended over body tags,
mark foot webs (birds, mammals), interdigital webbing of
the hind foot (aquatic mammals, birds), flippers (sea turtles, Jaw
aquatic mammals, sea birds), wings (birds, bats), and dor- Jaw tags have been used for amphibians and reptiles,
sal fins (cetaceans) (Table 15). Migration of the tags, injury but often were lost and caused irritation (Table 15),
to the dorsal fin, and covering of the tag with algae were Numbered monel metal tags had to be clamped into the
problems associated with dorsal tin tags. For marking fore comer of the mouth. a technique that has not been widely
flippers. monel metal tags are more durable than plastic used and is not recommended,
tags, although they may be less visible on marked animals
and exhibit significant rates of loss, Aluminum tags, which Branding
wear and corrode easily, are regarded as inferior to stainless Branding provides an inexpensive, permanent. and vis-
steel or monel metal tags for species inhabiting saltwater. ible means of marking animals, Hot iron. freeze, chemi-
Self-piercing fingerling fish tags, monel metal tags, cal, and laser branding all have been used to mark wildlife
plastic and metal ear tags, and Delrin button tags also have (Table 16), In addition, brand-like marks have been pro-
been used to mark the hind foot webs of mammals and duced using a special clamp to hold a stencil on either side
birds with good retention. Web tagging has been used to of the dorsal fin of cetaceans, causing the epithelium
mark ducklings in pipped eggs-part of the shell and under the pressurized area to be exfoliated and replaced
membrane of an egg were removed, a foot extracted, by demelanized skin that remained distinct for at least 2
tagged, and replaced, and the hole covered with masking years, This procedure, however. required 4 days for the
tape, Web tagging did not affect hatching success or sur- depigmented tissue to be produced limiting its value as a
vival after nest departure, field marker.
Fig. 20. During the irnping process. a tcather of a captured bird (left) is
clipped and a Ie.uherotcontrasting color rrigm ) is .urachcd to it by means
of a double-pointed needle.
marking techniques should be used if excessive pain,

behavioral changes, or decreased survival is expected.
Feather Imping
Hot-iron Branding lmping (insertion of a colored feather into the clipped
Hi,torically. hot-iron branding was used to permanent- shaft of a birds rectrices or remiges) (Fig. 20) using a dou-
ly mark domestic livestock. Hot branding has almost no ble-ended needle, cement or "super glue," and a toothpick
rule in modern wi ld lire management and is not recorn- has been used to mark birds until molting (Table 17).
mended because it causes extreme pain and can produce Rectrices typically are used, although rcmiges are suitable
open wounds that become infected. Currently. the only if the replacement feather closely matches the one cut off.
commonly u,cd application of this technique in wildlife Imping is probably less effective than painting feathers.
inv olvcs marking the horns of bovids,
Feather Clipping
Freeze Branding Portions of vanes arc dipped in different sizes and
Freeze branding. a technique originally developed for shapes from the shaft of several adjacent feathers, creating
livestock. is a more humane marking method. Highly con- unique holes in the wings or tail that are used to identify
ductive branding irons arc ,uper cooled. most commonly birds (Table 17). Clipping should be performed to not
in a mixture or dry icc and methanol or liquid nitrogen. and impair flight. This technique is most suitable for gliding
placed on a shaved and wash cd arcu of the skin. The epi- species and is of limited value for sedentary species
dermis i, temporarily lruzcn. destroying the pigment-pro- because the marks cannot be observed on perching birds.
ducing: mclanocytcs in the hair follicles and causing Moreover, the number of combinations producing effective
reurowth of white (Fil':. 19) as opposed to pigmented hair. marks is limited. Dyed feathers or colored tape attached to
Fl;cze branding has been used successfully to mark a vari- natural feathers, attached with wire to the rachis of natural
ctv of wildlife (Table l u), Freeze branding. if properly feathers whose vanes have been clipped 011, or glued to
applied, rarely results in infection. However. freezing the plumage in unnatural, conspicuous patterns also have been
xkin [or too lonu can cause scab formation or tissue necro- used on birds. All of these marks are lost during molt.
sis. rexu lt im; in Formation of new cells with intact
melanocvte,.~ which creates an indistinct mark. On lightly Fur Removal
pigmented animals. however, these can produce it dark The removal of fur in a unique pattern is a non-perma-
mark that can he read at a distance. A disadvantage DC nent, humane means of marking mammals (Table 17). The
Ircc,«: branding: is that the brand cannot be read until after marked animal generally is identifiable until the next molt.
the animal molt-, its pelage. Hair may be removed with mechanical clippers, chemicals.
or heat, allowing recognition of individuals at a distance.
Chemical Branding Depilatory pastes have been used to mark numbers on
Anurans have been branded using silver nitrate or a sil- mammals, but can be extremely irritating to the skin of
vcr nitrate- pota~\iul1l nitrate mixture. The silver nitrate seals. Hair burning ("hair branding") produces a sharp,
caused a brown mar" to lorm innncdiatcly with the dark highly visible mark on fur seals and does not damage the
mark I"adinl': into a lidlt mark within about 2 weeks. The skin; however, a fire source and a series of irons are
method \va~ rCc()lllnl~nded fur dark-colored amphibians. required
Laser Marking Shell Notching
Ruby lasers have been used to murk snakes. but were The most commonly used marking technique for turtles
unsuccessful in marking a turtle (Table 16). is notching the shell (Table 17). Marks on turtles may not
be permanent. To avoid weakening the shell, marginals at
Tissue Removal
the bridge or junction of the plastron and carapace should
The effect 01" most tissue-removal marking methods on not be notched.
survival and litncss is not adequately known and is a topic
that should be rigorously investigated (Society for the Scale Clipping
Study 01" Amphibians and Reptile, 1(87). Alternative Scale clipping with scissors or clippers is the most com-
Table 17. Tissue removal methods used to mark wildlife".
Group/Species Type Comments Citations

Snakes Subcaudal scale clipping Permanent mark (regeneration 4-5 Blanchard and Finster 1933, Carlstrom and
years) scars; marks not lost by Edelstam 1946. Conant 1948, Woodbury
tail breakage and marks persisted 1956. Weary 1969, Pough 1970, Brown
4 years; 92% of the time shed and Parker 1976. Ferner 1979
skin from clipped racers could be
precisely identified.
Turtles Toe clipping and shell Notches on young turtles may Cagle 1939, Ernst 1971
notching not be permanent
Frogs. toads. newts. Toe clipping Depending on species, some toe Martof 1953, Jameson 1957, Elford and
iguanas. hellbenders, regeneration; should avoid Mathias 1969, Briggs and Storm 1970,
and other lizards clipping thumbs of toads due to Brown and Alcala 1970, Minnich and
use in amplexus Shoemaker 1970, Hillis and Bellis 1971,
Clarke 1972, Dole and Durant 1974,
Richards et al. 1975, Daugherty 1976, Jones
and Ferguson 1980, Hero 1989, Huey et al.
1990, Dodd 1993, Golay and Durrer 1994
Salamanders Toe clipping Only successful marking method Hendrickson 1954. Woodbury 1956,
Heatwole 1961,Twitty 1966, Hall and
Stafford 1972, Wells and Wells 1976. Davis
and Ovaska 200 I
Amphibian tadpoles Tail-tin notching Tadpoles had higher mortality Turner 1960, Orser and Shure 1972, Guttman
and salamanders than staining, salamanders and Creasey 1973, Ferner 1979
regenerated tail in I month
American alligators Toe clip, tail-scute Permanent marks Chabreck 1965. Jennings ct al. 1991
notch. and web punch
Eastern newt Amputating I limb Not recommended Healy 1974
Alpine newt Skin transplantation 95Cf( retention rate after 3 years Rafinski 1977
Birds
Large to medium size Dyed and painted These marking techniques arc Edminster I938,Kozicky and Weston 1952,
feathers or colored tape temporary Neal 1964, Dickson et al, 1982, Ritchison
attached to cut feathers 1984
Medium and large hnping Used double-ended needle or Wright 1939, Harnerstrom 1942, Sowls 1950
cement
Penguins and zoo Web punching More practical than using leg Richdale 1951. Reuther 1968
birds bands. lighting destroyed marks
Pheasants. raptors, Feather vane clipping Most suitable for gliding species; Geis and Elbert 1956, Enderson 1964,
and frigate birds leaving holes in wings reduced breeding success of Snelling 1970, Gargctt 1973, Garnett 1987
or tail pheasants
Nestling gulls Grafting the pollex to Resulted in alula feathers Coppinger and Wentworth 1966
the skin of the head growing from the head region
Mallard Alula clipping Did not affect growth rate. Burger et al. 1970
behavior, or flight capability
Nestlings Toenail and toe clipping Toenail clipping remained for at Murphy 1981, SI. Louis et al. 1989
least 18 days
Mammals
Bats, beaver, nutria. Web punching or slits Distinct after 2 years in fur seals Aldous 1940, Scheffer 1950, Davis 1963a
and seals
Small mammals, Toe clipping Best to take only I toe per foot Baumgartner 1940. Dell 1957. Sanderson
hares, coyotes. and 1961, Melchior and Iwen 1965, Ambrose
seal pups 1972, Andclt and Gipson 1980. Riley and
William 198 L Fairley 1982, Gentry and Holt
1982. Pavone and Boonstra 1985, Korn
1987, Wood and Slade 1990
Small mammals Ear punching or clipping Some effect on movement and Blair 194 L Honma et al. 1986. Wood and
behavior Slade 1990
(Continued)
a Scientific names arc in the Appendix.

Table 17 tcontinuedi. Tis-uc removal methods used to mark wildlife".
Group/Spccie , Tvpe Comments Citations
Mammul., (coli/iI/lin!)
Rat- and sea" Caused extreme skin irritation in Chitty and Shorten 1946. Gentry 1979
sea],;
Wing hole jlulll'hing White scar lasted 1-5 months Bonaccorso and Smythe 1972. Bonacoorso et
al. 1976, Stcbbing» 1978
Juvenile bats Clawelljlplllg Lasted only a few weeks Stehbingx 1978
Seals Hall' burninu Does not burn skin Gentry 1979
Seals, European lur removal Lasted until next molt Gentry 1979, Stewart and MacDonald 1997,
badger. and mice Johnson 2001
,I Scientific' names nrc In till' Appendix.
monly used method or marking snakes (Table 17), Pieces oped a toe-clipping code for identification of lip to 9,999
should be cut from the subcaudals, which leaves "perrna- animals using no more than 2 digits clipped per foot. No
nent scars. Subcaudal cuts can be numbered on each side direct adverse effects of toe clipping were reported for
begil1nll1g at the proximal end of the tail. No adverse small mammals, and none of the extensive studies docu-
effect- have been reported lor snakes, hut regeneration mented harmful effects caused by clipping toes of lizards.
could be a problem and clipping is difficult on small or Toe clipping, however. caused a temporary reduction in
young snakes. Ventral scales arc larger and arc easier to capture rates. Toe clipping is not advised for bats because
clip than xuhcaudal scales. and scars in this area cannot be the toes are essential for roosting and grooming. This tech-
IO,st by tail breakage. nique also has been used for identifying tracks of marked
individuals. Suitable conditions (e.g .. snow) are required
Toenail Clipping for track identification. Ecologists generally avoid toe clip-
Clipping the toenail rather than toe, (Fig. 21) is prefer- ping tree frogs and salamanders for long-term studies
able I'm short-term studies or small mammals and nestling because of their regenerative capabilities. Although toe-
birds (Table 17). Clipped toenails remained sufficiently clipping amphibians and reptiles has disadvantages, it is
blunt at the tip to he distinguished throughout thc nestling still the 1110stcommon marking technique used for anurans.
period when birds arc too young to be banded. although the
n~\il, eventually grow hack. This method ulsn has been Ear Punching and Notching
used in bnt nursery rllO'h. but the marks lasted only a few The ears of many small mammals can be marked by
weeks. punching or clipping them in a variety of coded systems
(Table 17). Large-eared ungulates. carnivores, and pri-
Toe Clipping mates have been marked by cutting 1 or 2 notches at pre-
Toe clipping is widely used to individually mark anu- selected coded sites on the margin of the ear allowing for
ran" -mall 11\'II11m:lls.small turtles. and lizards (Table 17). a number of combinations. Ear notching or punching
The nail and lirst joint of the toe arc removed with sterile (using a leather punch) for large mammal species permits
dissecting scissors. The technique is inexpensive. rapid. identification of marked animals at a distance. Notches
and permanent hut. at times. clipped toes cannot he distin- usually last longer than tags, although they can be distort-
guished lrorn other causes of toc lo.'s. Kumar ( 1l)7'0) devel- ed by infection. growth. or injury (Ashton 1978). Ear
notching is not advisable for mammals that use their ears
for orientation and prey location or have valve-like ears
that function during deep-sea dives. The ethical implica-
tions of these techniques should he considered.
Web Punching
Slits or holes punched into foot webs. tl ippers, or wing
membranes have been used to mark many birds and mam-
mals (Table 17). The marks are permanent, but unclean
cutting may produce a small scar rather than a hole.
Leather punches usually produce clean holes. Although
some marks on web-footed birds are altered by injury or
healing. most marks are identifiable. Some authors report-
ed this method was more practical than leg bands. The
major disadvantage of web punching is that birds must be
recaptured for the web holes to be read. There are some
questions of the ethics of this technique.
Fig. 21 Clipping the tocnuil rather than the toe" preferred lor short- Tail Clipping
rcrm Illar!...illg <tudic . or
'-I IIIa I I IllaIlHH.d -,, Notches clipped from a tail tin is a traditional method
for marking amphibian tadpoles and some salamanders reviewing an earlier draft of the manuscript and an anony-
(Table 17). Fin clipping. however. produced higher mor- 1110US reviewer. we arc deeply grateful. Photographs used
tality than did staining techniques. Scutcs clipped on the in this chapter are [rom the collection within the
tails of crocodilians have proved useful in long-term stud- Department of Wildlife and Fisherie.' Sciences. Texas
ics. A&M University. Lastly. we appreciate and respect C. E.
Braun, editor. for his help. prodding. and patience.
Skin Transplantation
This method involv cs removal of skill from one pan of
LITERATURE CITED
the body and transplanting it to another. Although this
method has been successful in amphibians and some birds ABRAHA'\L K. l',. C. D. Ar-.:Kf'l-.Y .. \ '\Ill H. BOYD. IYXJ_ Axxortative mating.
(Table 17). we do not recommend it. by brunt. Auk 100:201 20.1.
AI.I)(>I ,. M. C .. ·1;';1) F. C CK·\[(;III II>, .IlL ILJ'iX. A lllarking technique
Amputation for bighorn sheep. Journal or wildlitc \1anagelllenl 22:++5--1+6.
Healy (1l)7-+) marked post-larval metamorphs of the Al.Il()I:S. S. F. I\1+0. A method otmarkin : heal·ers. Journal or Wildlife
eastern newt hy amputating one limb at the middle of the Managelllellt -1.: 1-l.)-!-l.X.
zeugopodium, hut few individuals were recaptured (Table AI.IlJ(J('H . .I. W. INIl .I. H. STU';';". 1'i)5. Neck-banding and other color
17 J. Newts regenerated the limb. usually within a month. marking. of w.ueriowl: ih mcru-, and shorlL'()Illill~\. Journal of
Amputation is not recommended. Wildlife Mana)o'eillent 19: 317-31 X.

~\!L1ST( )1'\, V~.J.G. 1975. \V('b-l~lggillg du(klill~:-' ill pipped l'gg". Journal
of Wildlik Management 19: 62'i-h2X.
SUMMARY Au. G. L.. C R. M"Llt'(;JII.I'i. 1"-,1) K. If. POIU)"". I'iX5. Far lag loss
hy black hears in Pcunvylvuniu. Journal or Wildlik Management +LJ:
If there is a need to recognize individual animals. usc of .116 .'2().
natural markings is the preferred alternative. If this is not AMBROSE. III. H. \Y. 1\172. LHcct or h.ibit.u Iamiliurit , and [(Ie clipping
feasible. marking animals without capture is the next best Oil rate of owl predation in A1h r{JIH.\ pcnnsvlvanict,«. Journal of
option. These methods eliminate 'Me.'s associated with Manlillalor;y ').1: l)()l) l) 12.
capture. For animals that must he captured prior to mark- A~IEI(ICA;'; ()I(~ITH()L()' ",!"s· t :c.!{H. I\lXX. Report or committee on usc
ing. noninvasive techniques arc preferred. hut arc not with- of wild bird, in research. Au, 105 (Supplemenl): IA-+I/\.
out problems. They can interfere with reproductive behav- AMEKIC,I;'; S(),'lt:I\ ()F 1\1-1~1"1II OCIS·IS. I'iLJX. Guidelines for tlu- cap-
lure. handling. .incl cart' 01' m.uumai-, as approvcd by the American
ior (color marks). increase predation risks (color marks),
Sociely of \1allllll,tlogi'h. Journal 01 Mnnuuulogv T'): 1+ 16-1 +31
and cause injury or increased mortality (band constriction.
AM!:'>. J. ;\ , R. A. II limy. IISI> F F. WI';';IlI.l.I. Il)S.1. Tagging materials
icing. entanglement of marks). Noninvasive methods gen- and mcthod-. lor "'a ouer-. l.uhvtl n: II/III.,. Calitorni« Fish 'IIlJ Game
erally arc preferred because application of many invasive 6'i: 2+3-252.
marks causes pain. The advantage of some invasive tech- Axnr.r.r, W. F. INill' S. (;II'S()~. Il)XlI. 'li)c'L'lippin~ CO) Oil'S tor individ-
niques is that many are "pennancnt." For example. tattoos ual idcnuficauon. .lourna] of Wildlife \lanagl'l11cnl ++: 2\13-2LJ+.
probably are the most permanent marking method avail- ANI>! RS();';. A I')().'. Patagial lag, for w.ucrtowl. Journal of Wildlife
able for many species. hut have the disadvantage of requir- Manugcmcut 27: 2X·1 2XX.
ing the animal to he in hand (recaptured. found dead) to he -----. ILJXO. The effecl, "I' agc and wear on color h.uid-; Journal of
identified. Use of PIT tags abo offers a relatively penna- Field Oruuholog , 'i I . 213-219
IlJX I. 1\1;lking polvv inyl chloride (I'VC) colored leghands.
nent marking method (some arc lost or become inopcru-
Journal of Wildli tc Manugemcnt -I'i: I IIh 7-1 ()(,X.
hie), hut have the same primary disadvantage as tattoos-
ANKrsLY. C. D. ILJ75. :sicckband, comribn«- to <r.uv.uion in [cmalc less-
animals usually must he recaptured lor identification. If er xnow gcese. Journal of Wildlife \1anagelllenl 3'): X25-X26.
animals only need to he marked for a limited time. then AR'i(JI.Il. K. A ... 1"-'1) D. W. C()():\. 1'i71. A technique rnoduir.uion t'OJ"
permanency of the mark is not a factor. There arc both color-marking birds. Bird-Banding +2: +LJ··)O.
noninvasive (c.g .. dyes) and invasive (c.g .. toe-nail clip- '\SfH();o.;. D. (0. 1'i7X. Marking 100 animals for idcnnfic.uion. Pages
ping) marking. methods that can be used for sort-term stud- 2-1-3-1 ill B. Sionchou-,«, editor. Animal l11ar,ing rccognirion mark-
ies yet have little affect on the animal. The ultimate ing or animal, in rcse'arch. t .nivervitv Park Press. Baltimore.
responsibility regarding which method should he used to Maryland. USA.
mark wildlife for a particular study depends on the ethical A.sIHO;'; . .IlL. R. E. I 'ns. A SILldy or move III en I. horne range. and \\ inter
behavior (If Dcstnovnathu» [uscus (Rufincxque j. Journal of
and scientific validity of method. and rests with the inves-
Hcrperolog , l!: X5- 'i I.
tigator.
ATllI"RIOCJ. N. W. ~1. F. M()I(I<{)w. A. I'. R"·I\;'iS. IV Irst> N. J. SlI.VY.
19X2. Shrinkage or ~pir~d pla~tic leg hand -, with rc ullillg leg uamage
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS to mourning dovc-, Prorccding-; or the Annual Conicrcnce of the
Southeastern A,,"cialion oj" hsh and Wildlife Agencie, .16:666-670.
We acknowledge M. T. Nietfeld and M. W. Barrell for BACO'!. P. R. I\l7J. The oricnt.uion circle in the beach asceru crawl of
compiling much of the literature on mammal and bird the leatherback turtle. l iennochclv: coriaccn. in Trinidad.
marking techniques (Nietkld ct al. Il)l)-+). We have Hcrpcrolovrc« 2LJ:.1+:1-.'+S.
BAH" C. ~1.. J. H. SIJ..\ill){){"f-,. D . .I. l Lwr.», ·Irsll P. S·lnllll,. ILJX5.
expanded and updated this information and provided a dif-
iophenoxic acid as a SCl"UIll marker In carnivorc«. Journal 01 Wildlife
ferent format for its presentation. We also acknowledge A.
Management +9: +9--51.
L. Hensley. A. D. Lopez. E. K. Lyons. J. S. Wagner. R. E. KIII.H. E. E.. G. F. W{){)I.F1·:'JIlI·rs. \'\1) W. B. ROIlI·lll·'CI'J. JR. IlJX7.
Walser. and S. W. Whisenant for literature searches and Abrasion and ]o:--sof hand ...from Dry! Turtu~a.\ .xooty terns. Journal oJ
copying 01" relevant papers. T. M. Johnson for scanning Field Olllilimlogv .~X:+ 1,--12+.
papers and photographs. and M. E. Gri ffin for proofing the B"IILLY. G. 'J. A .. 1..1. LI"-,'i. ,\;';Il P.J. W\I UK ILJ7J. Radioactive mark-
manuscript. To these people and R. E. Bennetts [or ing 01 small n"'I11I11al.s. Manuual RL'\ icw .1: 11-2:1

Marking Wild Animals PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marking Wild Animals PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13

WILDLIFE MARKING TECHNIQUES

Nova J. Silvy, Roel R. Lopez, and Markus J. Peterson

INTRODUCTION.. . 339 Radioactive Markers .354

INTRODUCTION and amphibians, respectively. Spellcrbcrg and Prest:

Fig. 1. Unique -'rots aml stripes Oil 2 bobcurs.

Table I. Natural markings used to identify individual animals a

Group/Species Method for identification Citations

Amphibians & Reptiles

a Scientific name.' are in the Appendix.

Group/Species Remote marking method Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Group/Species Materials and comments Citations

Amphihians & Reptiles

a Scientific name-, arc in rhc Appendix.

Arm and Wing Bands

Group/Species Materials and comments Citations

Amphibians & Reptiles

a Scientific names are in the Appendix

Box 1. Shrinkage of spiral plastic leg bands

Recaptures of mourning doves banded with spi-

Fig. 9. Nasal saddle on the hill of a female mallard.

Nasal Discs and Saddles Trailing Devices

Table 5, Nasal discs and saddles used to mark waterfowl.

Tag type/Group Comments Citations

Croup/Mar" type/Species Citations

[,,'lTancs and dCLT Braided rope harness Bigler 1966

Tapes, Streamers, and Bells

Group/Species Materials Comments Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Table 8. Nocturnal light sources for tracking wildlife".

Group/Species Light source Comments Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Bells have been used as short-term external markers to identify

External Color Marks Dyes

,l Scientific names arc in the Appendix,

INVASIVE MARKING TECHNIQUES

Group/Species Materials Comments Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Chemical Markers reasonably permanent marker for amphibians (Table II).

Group/Species Materials Comments Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Table 12. Radi()i,otopc:., ll,c:d lor marking wildlife' ".

CJ (oup/S pccic-, Radi()a("tiYc~ material, Comrnerus Citation,

Amphihian-, &. R.~plilL"

Iilac'k hear Magncsiulll Injected Pelton and Marcum 197:;

.1 Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Group/Species Comments Citations

Amphibians & Reptiles

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

Group/Specie, latt()o location Comments Citations

Amphibiun-, & R-eptik'

" Scientific n.unc-, ~II"C in the Appendix.

Group/Specie- Tag type Citations

Amphibians & Reptile.,

a Scientific names are ill the Appendix.

colorfastness arc functions of material composition and

Box 3. Placement of self-piercing metal ear tags

It has been our experience when using self-pierc-

Fig. 18. Patagial-\ving markerv on a lc.r-! u-rn.

Group/Species Brand type Comments Citations

a Scientific names are in the Appendix.

(1988) contended that patagial tags should not be used on Body