Reader Responses to Online Reporting of Tagged Bird Behavior

This paper explores responses to online coverage of an avian tracking project. Researchers attached novel trackers to a small group of wild magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen). These were subsequently removed by conspecifics, an example of 'rescue behavior' that was recounted in several media outlets. Online comments on three articles, from across the political spectrum (the Conversation, UK Guardian, and UK Daily Mail), were selected for thematic analysis. The resulting 680 comments were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to uncover predominant themes and the overall balance of positive and negative sentiments expressed about this tagging project or wildlife tagging generally. Topics occurring most frequently were themed into three interrelated areas: (1) sharing personal feelings and experiences, (2) comparing the merits of different species, and (3) sharing knowledge and opinion. Twenty-one percent (21%) of respondents expressed an opinion on the ethics of wildlife tagging. In the Daily Mail and Guardian, this opinion was more likely to be negative towards the use of tags. Opinion was more balanced for readers of the Conversation's article. Willingness to comment on online news is low, and readers of this story were not asked directly for their opinion. Nevertheless, the data here illustrate some public perceptions of wildlife tagging, and there was a clear negative reaction from many responders. Widening the means through which people can engage with animal science has the potential to advance discussions around research ethics and animal welfare. Reactions to this story expose important questions for scientists seeking to engage with, and convince, the public of the merits of their work.