Evolution of parany through time

The parany is a device which uses limed sticks to catch birds, an ancient technique reported by Greek authors of the second century BC (Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto Reference Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto1995). In Comunidad Valenciana, as in ancient times, the parany are set up in September and trapping lasts mainly (but not only) from October to November, coinciding with the peak in the number of migrating thrushes.

The parany consists of a tree or group of trees (usually Olive Olea europaea or Carob Ceratonia siliqua although other species may be used) pruned in such a way that wooden poles perforated by small holes can be placed in branches of the crown (Figure 2). Until the 1960s, stalks of esparto grass Stipa tenacissima or other species were placed vertically in the wooden poles with the aid of a type of putty. Previously, the sticks were covered with lime, an adhesive substance extracted by trappers from different plants (Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto Reference Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto1995). At night, passing thrushes were lured to the parany by calls produced by captive birds or using whistles. When birds perched, they came into contact with the limed sticks and lost the ability to fly. The birds fell to the ground and were caught by the trappers.

Figure 2. A typical parany. The lower photograph shows the placement of poles and sticks among branches.

Few of the traditional practices described in the previous paragraph are used in modern parany (for a similar shift of trapping techniques in other Mediterranean countries see Sustainable Hunting Project 2007). Now, trees are often surrounded by a wall (Figure 2); the poles, sticks and lime are synthetic and may be purchased in shops; poachers do not use a whistle to attract birds but an amplified recording of bird song played from a tape or CD player. These changes mean that (i) parany have become much more efficient; and (ii) bird trapping has become much more convenient for the poachers than in the past. As a consequence bird trapping has become a widespread practice in Comunidad Valenciana. From 1988 to 2001 about 5,000 parany were authorised a year plus 2,000–3,000 unauthorised ones (CMA 1999). Most of the authorised parany (3,843) were located in Castellón province (Figure 1). Since 2001, when widespread authorisation ceased, the exact number of parany used each year is unknown, but surveys conducted in Castellón province indicate that around 2,000 operate annually (Bort Reference Bort2005, GER et al. 2009).

Impact of parany on bird populations

The lack of data on both bird populations and the level of trapping means that to obtain a precise estimate of trapped birds and the effects of trapping on bird populations is difficult. It is estimated that 1.5–2 million thrushes per year are trapped (SEO/BirdLife 2001, Bort Reference Bort2005), mostly Song Thrushes Turdus philomelos and Redwings T. iliacus, but also smaller numbers of Fieldfares T. pilaris (a scarce migrant in Spain; Santos Reference Santos1982) and Mistle Thrushes T. viscivorus which is a largely sedentary species in many European countries (Henderson Reference Henderson, Hagemeijer and Blair1997). Assuming a migrating-wintering population of 3–5 million thrushes in Comunidad Valenciana (Nadal Reference Nadal, Comas, Piñol, Camuñas, Espuñes, Cunillera and Díaz1999) c.1.5 million trapped thrushes would comprise a sizeable proportion (30–66%). It may be more when considering the unknown number of birds killed by shooting and trapping techniques other than parany (e.g. mist-nets). Nevertheless, it is not possible to determine currently whether the survival rate and population trends of European thrushes is governed by hunting pressure (see McCulloch et al. Reference McCulloch, Tucker and Baillie1992, Aebischer et al. Reference Aebischer, Potts and Rehfisch1999, Payesky and Visotsky Reference Payevsky and Vysotsky2003).

From a bird’s point of view, a parany is merely a tree suitable for perching or roosting. Indeed, as lime sticks often trap invertebrates as well they may attract insectivorous bird species to feed (Castany and Castelló Reference Castany and Castelló1995, Martínez Reference Mártinez2006). Therefore, this indiscriminate method traps many other bird species, most of them protected by Spanish and European laws. A study in Catalonia conducted on similar trap devices (barraca) revealed that 58 bird species were trapped (GEPEC/DEPANA 1997). Many of those species are also trapped in the parany of Comunidad Valenciana: e.g. Robin Erithacus rubecula, Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis (see GER et al. 2009, Yerbes et al. Reference Yerbes, Batalla and Bayarri2010).

A precise quantification of the number of birds trapped is difficult to obtain. Gámez (1989) estimated that the ratio of non-thrush passerines to thrushes trapped was 0.3 and similar proportions have been reported by other authors (GEPEC/DEPANA 1997, GER et al. 2009); therefore about half a million other birds may be trapped annually. Additionally, a report on mortality of raptors in Castellón (GER 1989) revealed that 112 birds of seven raptor species were trapped in parany during 1987 and 1988.

Poaching motivations

Poaching is a widespread and increasing phenomenon that occurs in both low-income countries and in advanced industrial societies for a variety of reasons (Muth Reference Muth1998, Muth and Bowe Reference Muth and Bowe1998). These include subsistence hunting (e.g. Pratt et al. Reference Pratt, MacMillan and Gordon2004), protest or rebellion against the state (e.g. Forsyth et al. Reference Forsyth, Gramling and Wooddell1998) or cultural conflict (Yom-Tov Reference Yom-Tov2003). Often a single poacher may have multiple motivations for poaching (Forsyth et al. Reference Forsyth, Gramling and Wooddell1998).

The motivations of parany poachers have not been studied in depth by means of rigorous socio-economic or ethnographic studies (e.g. Bell et al. Reference Bell, Hampshire and Topalidou2007). Two justifications are often claimed by poachers. The first is that bird trapping is a traditional activity performed for generations that has been unjustly prohibited or too strictly regulated; in support of this some authors (Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto Reference Alfaro and Fernández-Nieto1995) even describe the parany as an innocuous practice comparable to an archaeological and historic monument. It is unclear where over-harvesting and the widespread use of electronic devices and synthetic materials should be accommodated in this perspective. Secondly, trapping is regarded by poachers as an act of rebellion of poor-rural people against ruling elites identified as from the affluent-urban sectors. This is untrue, as most parany are sited in some of the wealthier Comunidad Valenciana municipalities, and many poachers are affluent, as often occurs in developed countries (e.g. López-Darias et al. Reference López-Darias, Luzardo, Martínez, González, García and Cabreras2011). In spite of their low credibility, these motivations have been successfully exploited by APAVAL (Asociación de Paranyeros Valencianos), an association aimed to promote parany. This association is well organised and includes politicians and local businessmen as members or sympathisers, thus having enough political influence and financial support to publish a journal, to organise campaigns and pay for technical and legal reports in favour of parany.

Efforts of Comunidad Valenciana governments to legalise parany

The parany is a non-selective bird trapping method; therefore, it is prohibited by European laws, specifically the EU Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979). Nevertheless, Comunidad Valenciana governments along with poaching lobby groups have put considerable effort into avoiding compliance through different legal and technical stratagems.

From 1988 to 2000 CVG simply ignored laws and bird trapping was allowed to occur annually through “exceptional” authorisations. In 1994, a conservation group (AGRO) lodged an appeal against parany authorisations with the Comunidad Valenciana High Court of Justice. This appeal failed in 1997 and the parany was deemed to be an illegal trapping technique.

In 2000 CVG tried to circumvent European laws and judgements by adopting a Decree (Decree 135/2000) which allowed the granting of special licenses to trap thrushes. AGRO and Ecologistas en Acción lodged an appeal against the Decree, which was annulled in 2002 by the Comunidad Valenciana High Court of Justice. Additionally, in 2003 the Commission of the European Communities ruled that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to uphold the EU Birds Directive by authorising parany in Comunidad Valenciana (C-79/2003).

In 2004 CVG modified the Comunidad Valenciana Hunting Law (13/2004) in order to allow bird trapping. The Spanish Government lodged an appeal against the modification at the Supreme Court of Spain which in 2010 ruled that modification of the Hunting Law ought to be stayed.

Technical reasons for supporting parany claimed by Comunidad Valenciana governments

In collaboration with the poachers’ lobby, Comunidad Valenciana governments have generated different technical reports (CMA 1999, CMA 2001), and commissioned studies conducted in “scientific parany” (Ricci and Burgui Reference Ricci and Burgui2004, Yerbes et al. Reference Yerbes, Batalla and Bayarri2010). All these studies attempted to prove that bird trapping fulfilled Article 9(1) of EU Birds which states that prohibition of bird trapping in Article 8 (1) may be derogated where “there is no other satisfactory solution to prevent serious damage to crops or to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers”. In the following paragraphs we shall discuss whether these requirements are fulfilled or not.

1. Small numbers of birds captured. During the 1988–1990 hunting seasons the trapping of 9,287,850 thrushes per year was authorised (Guitiérrez Reference Guitiérrez1991), which is a virtually unlimited number. According to data cited in SEO/BirdLife (2001), in subsequent years the number of authorised thrushes per parany per year was 500 (1991–1997), 300 (1998–2000) and 150 (2001). Extrapolating these figures to the 5,000 authorised parany operating each year (CMA 1999) the number of thrushes trapped annually may have ranged between 750,000 and 2,500,000. In a technical report (CMA 1999) it was assumed that 750,000 thrushes per year represented a small fraction of the population of migratory-wintering thrushes in Comunidad Valenciana which ranged between 15 and 60 million individuals; however, the methodology used to calculate this estimate was not explained. According to a report commissioned by CVG (Nadal et al. Reference Nadal, Comas, Piñol, Camuñas, Espuñes, Cunillera and Díaz1999) the population size of migratory-wintering thrushes in Comunidad Valenciana ranged between 3 and 5 million birds, a result close to another independent estimate using complementary methods (Societat Valenciana d´Ornitologia 2000). In summary, nearly one million trapped thrushes would constitute a notable proportion of the migratory-wintering population. In fact, the European Commission (Case C-79/03) concluded that the number of trapped thrushes largely exceeded “small quantities”.

2. Selective basis. True selectivity (preventing the trapping of species smaller than thrushes) was attempted by increasing the space between limed sticks (CMA 1999). This was not effective because smaller birds were still trapped when touching the limed sticks by chance or when feeding on invertebrates (Castany and Castelló Reference Castany and Castelló1995, Martínez Reference Mártinez2006) and because birds larger than thrushes, even raptors, may be trapped. This last possibility, denounced repeatedly by conservationists, was labeled “as totally lacking credibility” in a technical CVG report (CMA 2001). Ironically, one Northern Goshawk, a Barn Owl Tyto alba and a Long-eared Owl Asio otus were trapped during studies conducted in “scientific parany” in 2009 (Yerbes et al. Reference Yerbes, Batalla and Bayarri2010).

As true selectivity is dubious, CVG have claimed that another kind of selectivity occurs a posteriori when non-authorised species and thrushes exceeding the quota are released by poachers (CMA 1999). This kind of selectivity assumes that trapping does not affect released birds, which remains unproven. First, when birds fall and hit the ground, some die or suffer injuries (Castany and Castelló Reference Castany and Castelló1995) and they often remain for hours inside the parany before poachers catch them (Bort Reference Bort2005), thus increasing the risk of starvation. Secondly, feathers damaged by lime must be cleaned with other products before release, a procedure that may damage the feathers and injure the birds (Figure 3). Thirdly, the use of lime and anti-lime products is harmful to birds. A report carried out by IREC (Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos; Viñuela et al. Reference Viñuela, Mateo, Villanúa, Hoofle, Luna, Camarero and Jiménez2005) demonstrated experimentally that a type of synthetic lime (named C-96) and anti-lime (anti C-96) products contained toxic and narcotic components and that their use altered the macro and micro-structure of feathers, thus reducing waterproofing. As a result, thrushes became sleepy and spent more time cleaning feathers; additionally, some smaller bird species reduced their feeding rate and some birds died. The report concluded that survival of birds captured and released in this way was likely to be reduced. The use of another supposedly non-toxic lime (named 288C140X) which could be cleaned using water was regarded as unsuitable for trapping because rain and atmospheric moisture reduced its adhesive capacity (Martínez Reference Mártinez2006). The European Commission (Case C-79/03) has not accepted the argument that release of birds guarantees the selectivity of parany.

Figure 3. Effects of lime on Song Thrush feathers.

3. Strictly supervised conditions. The number of birds actually trapped every year depends on fluctuations in the size of migratory-wintering populations and on trapping effort which in turns depends on many conditions (number of operative parany per season, number of trees per parany, number of poles and sticks per tree, number of days trapping etc.) which should be supervised by the authorities. The results of a survey of 370 authorised paranys carried out by NGOs in 2000 (GER-EA 2001) revealed that 80% did not observe the conditions set out in the authorisation. Furthermore, government wardens have prosecuted some “scientific parany” because they did not observe the rules that authorised “scientific” trapping (GER et al. 2009). Although wardens are usually highly motivated, their role is difficult for several reasons: aggression from poachers, the fact that they personally suffer the social pressure of having betrayed their neighbours, weak public attitudes against trapping and the lack of law enforcement (for a similar situation in Spain see Lopez-Darias et al. Reference López-Darias, Luzardo, Martínez, González, García and Cabreras2011). As a result, and despite the fact that paranys are easily detectable and trapping levels are very high, the number of poachers prosecuted by government wardens decreased from 406 in 2003 to only 154 in 2008 (GER et al. 2009).

4. Crop damage. Using no explicit methodology or references, it was calculated that a population of 15–60 million thrushes would extensively damage olive and grape crops at a cost of 15 million euros (CMA 1999). For a much more realistic population estimate of 3–5 million thrushes (Nadal et al. Reference Nadal, Comas, Piñol, Camuñas, Espuñes, Cunillera and Díaz1999) and using the available information on energy requirements and crop intake of thrushes (Manzanares Reference Manzanares1983, Tejero et al. Reference Tejero, Soler and Camacho1984, Soler et al. Reference Soler, Pérez-González, Tejero and Camacho1988, González-Solís and Ruiz Reference González-Solís and Ruiz1990) it was calculated that thrushes would cause a much smaller amount of damage, estimated at 2.2 million euros, i.e. 0.66 Euros ha^-1 year^-1 (Societat Valenciana d´Ornitologia 2000). Further, using data from Castellón province (GER et al. 2009, Consellería de Agricultura 2010) where most parany are located, it seems that bird trapping is a questionable way of preventing crop damage as (i) at the municipality scale, the distribution of parany and crops in Castellón province only loosely coincide (Figure 1); (ii) the number of authorised parany does not depend on the extent of olive-grape crops per municipality (Spearman r ₆₂ = 0.096, P = 0.456) and (iii) most paranys (72%) are placed in areas where orange groves predominate (GER et al. 2009) and even inside urban areas (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Parany inside an urban area.