Drones and wildlife

Drones have enormous potential in wildlife conservation efforts. But they also have a huge potential for harming wildlife.

“When you go online, it’s easy to find cases where you see drones attacking wildlife,” laments Patrick Charbonneau, biologist responsible for research projects on drones at the Quebec ministry of Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks.

Standards to respect

The problem is mostly related to the recreational use of drones. “In research, we have standards to respect so as not to disturb wildlife,” says Mr. Charbonneau. If we want to publish our articles in scientific journals, we need a certificate of good animal care issued by a protection committee. »

Mr. Charbonneau and a colleague, Jérôme Lemaître, provided an overview of the research in this area in an article published in The Canadian Naturalist under the title “Review of the applications and usefulness of drones in nature conservation”.

They conclude that drones would have effects on wildlife by flying a little too close. “The distance to respect so as not to disturb the wildlife would be between 60 and 100 meters,” says Mr. Charbonneau.

More specifically, we are talking about 100 meters for land mammals, raptor nests and bird colonies, about fifty meters for marine mammals and about twenty meters for fish, amphibians and turtles. .

Microdrones (weighing 250 grams or less) would be less disturbing for wildlife, but a minimum distance would still have to be respected, i.e. around fifty meters for land mammals and birds and around ten meters for fish. , amphibians and turtles. But there is no question of flying over a nest of birds of prey: the stress could lead the young to jump out of the nest and the adults to attack the drone.

Attention should also be paid to the approach angle of the birds.

It also seems that longer flights have more impacts than shorter flights.

Mr. Charbonneau recalls that hunting with a drone is prohibited in Quebec, as is drone-assisted fishing in salmon rivers.

Not a quick fix

Moreover, by reviewing the scientific literature and conducting his own research, Mr. Charbonneau found that drones were not a miracle solution for researchers who study wildlife.

“Many people think that the drone will solve all our problems because we are short of manpower and that with drones, it will cost less and be just as effective,” says Mr. Charbonneau. .

According to the literature, the effectiveness varies according to the animals studied. Drones would be more beneficial for large animals and birds. But not always.

Mr. Charbonneau and his colleagues have just completed a study on the golden eagle and the peregrine falcon. To follow the evolution of the chicks until their flight, it is necessary to make four observation trips.

“We realized that the first two field trips are not effective with the drone, it is even better to use a ground observer, relates Patrick Charbonneau. It is only the third that is effective with the drone, which makes it easier to count the number of eggs or the number of young. As for the fourth outing, we don’t want to go there with a drone because it can scare the young and encourage them to jump out of the nest. »

The team also found that, in the case of the turtles, the drone was able to detect them, but not identify them.

“Environmental DNA would probably be more effective for that,” says Charbonneau. This process involves detecting turtle DNA in water samples. “At the moment, environmental DNA is a big trend,” he adds.

The drone may be called upon to replace the helicopter, one of the main causes of death for biologists in the exercise of their functions. But when it comes to long distances, such as in the Far North, the helicopter can still be the most effective method for carrying out inventories.