In the spring of 1954 a full-scale Heligoland model trap was built at Point Pelee. The following spring limited use was made of mist- nets. Since then both the trap and nets have been used during the spring and fall migrations. This article is a report on the use of a Heligoland trap in North America, in conjunction with mist-nets, with a discussion of some of the relative merits ,of mist-nets and Heligoland traps. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Point Pelee, the most southern point of the mainland of Canada, is situated at the extreme southwestern portion of the province of Ontario. (Latitude 41 ø 54' Longitude 82 ø 31'). It is 6 miles wide at the base and extends out into Lake Erie for ab.out 9 miles. he general aspect is that ,of two long, low sandbars meeting at the apex, where they are joined for a little over two miles, and then stretching out in divergent lines to the main shore. A great deal of the point is swamp, of varying degrees of wetness. The eastern shore is a single sand dune, with some deciduous trees and undergrowth. The western side is wooded with deciduous trees and evergreens, principally black walnut and red cedar. A medium sized hardwood forest of oaks, walnut, and buttonwood has been set aside as a nature sanctuary. All in all there is a wide variety of habitat--cedar thickets, brushy tangles, marsh, ponds, sand dunes, open fields, beach and hardwood forest. THE MIGRATION Since the days of the Great Lakes Ornithological Club (Taremet and Swales, 1907-08) Point Pelee has been widely kno'wn as an excel- lent place to observe visible and resting migrants. The point seems to act as a natural "funnel", concentrating the birds as they move south towards the end of the point. A feature ,of the spring migration is the occurrence of "reversed migration," that is, birds moving south rather than north (Gunn, 1948). Over 60 species have been known to exhibit this behaviour. No entirely satisfactory explanation has been offered, but it seems to occur when the wind is from the south. Extra- limital birds, or strays, ,of southern or western distribution are some- times observed at the point. The fall migration is sometimes more striking than the spring. Large numbers of hawks, mainly Sharp-shinned Hawks, up to 1500 in one day, move through. In late September and October large concentrations of many species of sparrows occur. THE HELIGOLAND TRAP Heligoland traps have been described in detail by Brownlow (1952) and Williams.on (1957). They are simply a tapering wire-netting enclosure, open at the wide end and closed at the narrow end by a Contribution number 3 of the Point Pelee Bird Banding Station, of the Ontario Bird Banding Association. collecting-box, which has a transparent back, which appears to the birds which have entered the trap as a means of escape and induces them to enter the box. The Heligoland trap was originally developed from netting traps used by the Heligoland islanders to catch thrushes. Description: The trap at Point Pelee follows the general plan in Brownl,ow(op. cit.) with minor changes to suit local conditions. (See Fig. 1). The original trap was descri,bed by Gunn (1954). Each year has seen some changes in the design as the result of experience. The site has been changed once and it seems likely that it will be changed again. Lead Lead Drop Door Baader's Door Collecting Box Ramp ..'...' :-i.' i.'::i:."i :'.".:';' Fig. 1. The Iteligoland Trap at Point Drop Door The trap is 25 feet wide and 15 feet high at the entry. Over about 40 feet it tapers down to about 3 feet wide and 6 feet high at the col- lecting-end. The first 15 feet, from the entry, is covered with one inch wire-netting. The remainder is covered with ,one-half inch, with the exception of a part of the roof. A part of the area c, overed by one inch netting consists of two layers over-lapped. On either side of the entry there is a wing or guide wall of one inch netting, about 8 feet high and 15 feet long. These tend to prevent some birds from by-passing the trap. For the first year there was no wing )n the right side, a mist-net being set at right angles to the entry to intercept individuals which enter the trap and then attempt to fly back out. Just inside the entry there are ba/ttes on either side which sometimes discourage birds which 'are trying to escape from the trap. The lead to the collecting-.bo is curved to minimize "fly-back", that is, birds flying back out the entry rather than entering the collecting- box. The ramp leading to the collecting-box is made of rough lumber, with "steps" of one by two inch strapping every foot. It is sloped up at about a 30 ø angle. Various sizes and shapes of collecting-boxes have been used. The present one is about two feet square and was constructed of five-eighths and one-quarter inch outdoor plywood. The back is sloped and grooves are cut in the sides t,o allow the glass back to slide in and out easily. Plexiglass was tried as a substitute for glass, but it discolored and 'was difficult to clean. A shelf, extending to within two inches of the back, divides the c.ollecting-box into two compartments. (See Fig. 2.) The birds enter the upper compartment and fly back to the glass. There they flutter against it and exentually slide down to the lower compartment. There are two exits, about six inches in diameter, in the side. Attached over these are collecting cages, about 6 'by 8 ,by 15 inches, which have a door in the top so that the birds may be removed. If the .birds do not enter the cages there is a "piston", which may be pulled across the lower compartment to reduce the area and force the birds into the collecting- cages. ?.,, .._ - Collecting Box (- ...,_ / Gla,s ..... I','l About 8 feet from the curve of the collecting-end there is a drop-door, which is hinged at the roof and is controlled by a 'wire from near the entry. When a bird or birds have penetrated the trap as far as the lock-up the banders may lower the drop-do'or, thus confining the birds in a small area. If they do not enter the collecting-box a bander may enter the lock-p, via the .bander's door, and drive the birds into the box or catch th by hand. The original framework of the trap was one inch steel pipe. It was found that it was di1/2ult to attach wire-netting to the pipe, so the pipe has been largely replaced by cedar posts as uprights and two-by-fours for cross pieces and braces. The doors are set into a framework so they will work easily and eciently. Operation: The trap is made operational by inserting the glass back in the collecting-box. There are then three alternatives open to the trappers: 1) the birds may be left to enter on their own, 2) they may be driven into the lock-np after they have entered the trap, and 3) a "drive" may be made from several hundred yards up the point to the trap. The first alternative is the ideal one, but often not too many birds are taken this way. This is due in part to the location of the trap. The second method is used when there is a good movement of birds down to the trap area. Often birds will enter the trap but then turn back. Two, or three, trappers may cover the entry and drive the birds towards the collecting-end by moving in quickly and clapping their hands or shaking the vegetation. If there are few birds in the trap area a "drive" may be organized. Three or four trappers take up positions, a few yards apart, in a rea- sonably straight line, several hundred yards up the point. They move forward slowly, "beating" the underbrush with a stick )r clapping their hands. Too much disturbance tends to make the birds fly up and over the trappers. They are also more likely to break back if the trappers do not keep in line. When the trappers reach the entry a sudden rush may be effective in driving the birds into the lock-up. Two or three "drives" a day may produce good catches. Just before dusk is an especially go.od time. Thrushes, sparrows and some sparrows make up the bulk of the catches from "drives". Too many "drives" seems to "disturb" the birds and they may move out of trapping range. The best times seem to be in the early morning and the evening, although some days birds may be taken all day. Sharp-shinned Hawks have been trapped when they have chased a small bird into the trap. MIST-NETS The Japanese mist-nets in use at Point Pelee are either 9 or 12.5 metres long, 2 metres high or wide and have 4 shelves. Silk nets have one and one-half inch stretched mesh and nylon ones two and one-half inch. The silk nets were used for general netting, while the nylon nets were sometimes used to take hawks, shorebirds and gulls. Low (1957) has discussed banding with mist-nets and the procedures at Point Pelee are similar in most respects except as noted below. Setting the net: The net is supported between two 10-foot lengths of one-half inch steel thinwall electrical conduit, which have been cut in half and are joined by a standard c,onnector. The shelf-string loops are slipped over the conduit and the last (or top) one is looped so that it does not slip down easily. In setting the net the bottom half of the pole is driven into the ground and the top section, with the net attached, is set in place. The bander then walks slowly away letting 'out the net. When the net is unfurled the bottom half of the second pole is pushed in and the top set in place. The shelf-string loops are then adjusted as is the distribu- tion of netting. In taking the net down all the loops are pushed up near the top of pole number one. Then the loops on pole two are pushed up and the top section is lifted off. The bander then walks back towards pole one looping the net in his hands, like a lasso, keeping the remainder taut so that it does not billow and occasionally pulling the mesh towards him so that it is not bunched at one end. The top halves, with the net attached, are laid on a three-foot square .of plastic sheeting. The TABLE 1. Secies and individuals taken in mist-nets and the Heligolan. d Trap, Spring and Fall, 1956-57. Spring Fall Species M. N. H. T. M. N. H. T. Sharp-shinned Hawk i 95 23 Yellow-billed Cuckoo i i 1 Black-billed Cuckoo i 9 1 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 6 4 23 14 Red-headed Woodpecker I 1 Downy Woodpecker 1 2 Eastern Kingbird 12 3 1 Y.ellow-bellied Flycatcher 3 2 Empidonax spp. 50 16 14 6 Eastern Wood Pewee 3 1 4 5 Tree Swallow 25 3 Bank Swallow 458 82 Barn Swallow 93 24 Cliff Swallow 3 Blue Jay 5 2 18 13 Red-breasted Nuthatch 2 4 Winter Wren 2 4 2 1 Catbird 26 13 19 8 Wood Thrush 4 1 Hermit Thrush 3 11 3 Swainson's T, hrush 23 13 S5 74 Grey-cheeked Thrush 1 62 27 Veery 5 6 4 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 1 5 3 Golden-crowned Kinglet 6 4 3 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 12 3 8 1 Cedar Waxwing 2 1 Solitary Vireo 4 1 1 Red-eyed Vireo 21 10 5 3 P.hiladelphia Vireo 2 4 1 Warbling Vireo 4 2 Black-and-white Warbler 4 10 3 Tennessee Warbler 5 I 1 Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1 Nashville Warber 19 8 1 1 Yellow Warbler 23 19 9 1 Magnolia Warbler 2-, 11 1; 5 Cape May Warbler 8 1 Black-throated Blue Warbler 2 2 Myrtle Warbler 3 2 1 Black-throated Green Warbler 7 10 2 Cerulean Warbler 2 5 Blackburnian Warbler 3 9 1 Chestnut-sided Warbler 12 20 2 Bay-breasted Warbler 1 7 1 Blackpoll Warbler 1 1 31 15 Palm Warbler 1 10 6 Ovenbird 15 16 8 4 Northern Waterthrush 1 3 4 Mourning Warbler 3 2 3 Yellowthroat 3 1 1 Yellow-breasted Chat 1 2 1 Hooded Warbler 1 1 Wilson's Warbler 2 5 4 1 Canada Warbler 5 4 2 American Redstart 2 5 17 5 House Sparrow 1 3 Redwinged Blackbird 7 5 4 Orchard Oriole 2 1 Spring Fall Species M. N. H. T. M. N. H. T. Baltimore Oriole 8 5 2 Common Grackle 1 1 3 Scarlet Tanager 11 9 Cardinal 1 1 14 2 Indigo Bunting 3 5 7 American Goldfinch 3 2 3 1 Rufous-sided Towhee 2 2 Savannah Sparrow 1 4 Slate-colored Junco 35 3 6 White-crowned Sparrow 37 29 14 White-throated Sparrow 8 8 23 2 Lincoln's Sparrow 5 2 Swamp Sparrow 3 16 Song Sparrow 6 3 17 1 bottom halves are collected and the whole thing is rolled up and tied-- all ready to set up in a minute. Net sites: Nets are used in a variety of situations. The most pro- ductive are across hedgerows or 'wild grape tangles. Lanes 3 to 4 feet wide are cut with machetes and garden cutters. Sometimes two nets are set in one lane--one set high, the ,other low. Some success has been 'had using nets at the top of 35 foot sections--the only problem being removing the birds. Nets are sometimes shifted to take advantage of local movements. An example of this was in May 1956, when severe cold weather forced many species, especially swallows, to feed along the beach. Several hundred swallows were taken in nets staggered along the beach. Up to thirty nets have been in operation at one time but the usual number is 6-12. In April and October success has been had in catching sparrows 'by setting a line of about a dozen nets across an old orchard and moving the birds from one end of the orchard to the other. A number of shorebirds have been netted by setting nets along the beach, near the tip of the point at night. The best time has Ibeen from 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. A number of paths and roadways cut across the point on the west side; nets set along these have taken numbers of Sharp-shinned Ha'wks. COMPARISON OF CATCHES Information is available on 2,348 individuals as to whether they were taken in nets or the Heligoland trap. This is summarized in Table 1. Of these 1,647 were netted while 701 'were trapped. Birds per trap and per net-hour, that is the trap operating for one hour or one net set for one hour, are 0.2 and 0.3 respectively. These totals represent about one-third of the 7,417 birds taken during the four years, 1954-1957 (W. oodford and Wasserfall, 1958). A number of additional species were taken but definite information on them is not available. Table 2 shows the catches by families. While the trends are similar the percentage catches are somewhat differerrt. The trap is particularly effective for "ground" species, such as some of the warblers, thrushes and sparrows. TABLE 2. Family percentages of birds taken in mist-nets and Heligoland traps. Mist-nets Heligoland Trap 1--Hirundinidae 35.6% 1--Parulidae 28.5% 2--Parulidae 15.5% 2--Turdidae 17.8% 3--Turdidae 12.2% 3--Hirundinidae 15.7% 4--Fringillidae 12.1% 4-Fringillidae 13.9% MIST-DIETS VERSUS HELIGOLAND TRAPS Williamson (op. cit.) has discussed the relative merits of mist.nets and Heligoland traps, when ued on a wind-swept, barren island. He concluded that for general use traps were more productive, but nets should be available for emergencies--such as a rarity out of the trapping area. There are many days at Point Pelee when the wind or rain severely limits netting activities. Several strategically located Heligoland traps would have greatly increased the daily catch. The best location for a Heligoland trap is along a low hedgerow or a fenceline where numbers of birds travel fairly regularly. A low entrance to the trap is desirable as the birds are less likely to fly back once they have entered. A trap in either of these situations would intercept the birds as they moved along and less "driving" would be necessary. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of mist-nets and Heligo- land model traps are listed in Table 3. Possibly the chief objection to the building of a Heligoland trap would be the initial cost--probably between two and four hundred dollars---and the time and labor in- volved. Most banding stations are manned by volunteers, who spend TABLE 3. Some advantages and disadvantages of Mist-Nets and Heligoland Traps. MIST-NETS Advantages 1--portable 2--easily set up 3---large area may be covered 4--low initial cost 5--easily moved to take advantage of local movements Disadvantages 1--affected by wind and wet weather 2--must remove each bird separately 3---must be taken down (or furled) when not attended 4--birds may lose feathers (about to be moulted) or parasites HELIGOLAND TRAPS ,4 dvantages 1--more 'weatherproof' 2--mde .operational by inserting glass back 3--birds easily removed from collecting-box 4--not as frequent inspection neededmore time for observation, banding, etc. Disadvantages 1--high initial cost and time needed for construction 2--fixed position--small area covered 3--need crew (2 to 4) to operate 4--upkeep---repairs, etc. their holidays banding, and most of them natur,ally want to spend as much of the time as possible actually catching and banding birds. However, as more and more permanent stati,ons, with some paid personnel appear, such as the one on Nantucket (Dennis and Whittles, 1955), consideration may be given to the construction of Heligoland traps. There is a point on Pelee Island which is overgrown with vines and tangles--most of which are under 10 feet high. During the spring migration it is literally covered by birds--350 were banded by two banders in one day--but due to the wind it is impossible to use nets about 854 of the time. One double Heligoland trap would take hun- dreds or thousands most springs. There are probably other places where one or two Heligolands would take good numbers, but where it is impossible to net every day. So far most of the emphasis in North American banding has been to band l'arge numbers in the hope of recoveries. As the recovery rate is very small more time may be spent examining individuals. At Fair Isle each bird is weighted, measured, examined for parasites, notes are taken on moult and many are identified to subspecies by comparison with specimens (Williamson, 1957). Emphasis is on catching, if possible, a number of birds each day rather than hundreds one day and none the next. The Heligoland traps produce birds even on windy, wet days when mist-nets would be useless. The writer would .be glad to discuss the building or use of Heligo- land traps with any interested persons. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Mr. Douglas D. Dow, Mr. Frank T. Lovesy and Mr. William Wasserfall for the use of field data and valuable sugges- tions and criticisms. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has provided financial sup- port for the project for the years 1954-1957. SUMMARY 1. A full-scale Heligoland model trap was built at Point Pelee in the spring of 1954. Both the trap and mist-nets have been used since 1955. 2. Data are available on 1647 birds netted and 701 taken in the trap. 3. These are listed by species and by families. 4. Relative merits of mist-nets and Heligoland traps are summarized. 5. Possibilities of building Heligoland traps in North America are discussed. REFERENCES BROWNnOW, H. G. 1952. The design, construction and operation of Heligoland traps. British Birds, 45: 387-399. DENNIS, J. V., and L. J. WHITTLES. 1955. The riddle of fall migration on Nan- tucket. Bulletin o/ the Massachusetts Audubon Society, 39: 319-324, 385-394. GUNN, W. W. H. 1948, Reverse migration over Lake Erie. Wilso Bulletin, 60: 67. 1954. The bird-banding project at Point Pelee Nation,al Park. Bulletin of the Federation o/Ontario Naturalists, 66: 24-28. Low, SETH H. 1957. Banding with mist-nets. Bird-Banding, 28: 115-128. TAVERNER, P. A. and B. H. SWALES. 1907-08. The birds of Point Pelee. Wilson Bulletin, 14:37-54 and 15: 82-99. WILLIAMSON, KENNETH. 1957. Mist-nets versus Heligoland traps. Bird-Banding, 28: 213-222. Woowe[m, J., and W. J. WASSERFALL. 1958. The Point Pelee birdsbanding station: 1954-1957. Bulletin o! the Federation o/ Ontario Naturalists, 80: 20-26. c/o Royal Ontario Museum, I00 Queens Park, Toronto, Canada.