Wireless Tracking Technologies Could Harm Wildlife
New study published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science calls for caution and best management practices for radio tracking technologies.
A new paper discusses the potential health risks and benefits to tagged wildlife from the use of radio tracking, radio telemetry, and related microchip and data-logger technologies used to study, monitor and track wildlife in their native habitats. Scientific studies on health impacts from the radiofrequency and electromagnetic radiation exposure of tracking technologies are reviewed and best management practices are recommended including the need for more caution in the wildlife and veterinarian communities before such technologies are used.
"There are potentially serious downsides to using this technology. These must be recognized and ideally replaced with safer alternative technologies—where they exist—by field researchers, fish and wildlife biologists, wildlife veterinarians, and others."
The journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science published the article, “Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices.” Authors include: Albert M. Manville II, former senior wildlife biologist in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; B. Blake Levitt, award winning science writer; and Henry C. Lai, Professor Emeritus at University of Washington. These three experts also authored a landmark three part review on impacts to wildlife from rising levels of wireless and anthropogenic EMFs in the environment.
"It is logical to assume that artificial EMFs are capable of affecting species with distinctive magnetoreception mechanisms and physiologies far more sensitive than humans, given the unusual signaling characteristics, odd wave forms, phased pulsing patterns, concentration of nonionizing radiation frequencies at the Earth’s surface and in lower atmospheric regions for the first time in evolutionary history, and at transmission intensities unlike anything in nature. It is also logical to assume that our constantly rising EMF ambient levels are capable of ecosystem level effects to myriad species."
"Even if effects from animal radio-tagging prove to be small, as telemetry use continues to scale up, such devices will never-the-less be contributing to all the other effects from environmental EMF that wildlife and domestic pets encounter today—e.g., from cellular communications, wi-fi, emergency broadcast, TV/radio towers, other forms of microwave communications, smart meters/technologies, transmission power lines/substations, satellites, and more. Cumulative effects need to be addressed. This is, of course, in addition to the negative cumulative impacts from climate change, invasive species, habitat loss and degradation, pesticides, contamination and oil spills, poisoning, and others. Wildlife are facing growing threats, akin to “death by a thousand cuts.”
Radio tracking uses very high frequency (VHF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), and global positioning system (GPS) technologies using satellites, radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips, and passive integrated responder (PIT) tags, among others. While scientists, field researchers, fish and wildlife biologists and other specialists choose to use these technologies, the authors state that scientific evidence indicates numerous data gaps as well as evidence of negative physiological effects from the electromagnetic fields exposures from tracking technologies.
While more research is needed on these technologies, the science indicates that caution is needed.
“It is this new understanding of low-level EMF effects to all species that calls into question the here-to-fore widespread assumption that radio-tagging is a benign activity below certain regulatory tissue heating thresholds (81–83). This is an assumption that has proven inadequate to the task of regulating for chronic low-level exposures (3, 84); unusual signaling characteristics that are not taken into consideration in any standards set for human exposures let alone for nonhuman species (27); and the fact that manmade EMFs are fundamentally physically different than anything that exists in nature (85, 86) to which nonhuman species are uniquely ill-adapted (3–6, 87–92). Human curiosity—when all these flaws regarding popular assumptions are factored in—does not supersede potential effects to animals but it does illustrate that new perspectives and research are needed. “
The paper is open access and downloadable from this link.
Another wildlife biologist, Alfonso Balmori has published two papers on the issue with similar conclusions. "Radiotelemetry and wildlife: Highlighting a gap in the knowledge on radiofrequency radiation effects" published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in 2016 concluded more research is needed as radiotracking may induce negative effects due to scientific research documenting impacts on survival, reproduction and behavior.
Balmori then followed up with a 2024 study "Radio-tracking systems emit pulsed waves that could affect the health and alter the orientation of animals" published in the Journal for Nature Conservation again reviewing the latest science and concluding that biologists should reconsider the extensive use of radio tracking devices. Studies documenting effects on the immune system, behaviour, mortality, sperm quality, ovarian development, embryonic mortality and magnetic compass orientation were referenced. Balmori asserts that non-thermal effects may explain some of the long-term impacts found in radio-tracked animals, such as lower annual survival rates, alterations in behaviour and activity, alterations in reproductive rates, biased sex ratios, or changes in movement patterns.
Manville, Levitt and Lai's 2024 paper recommended best management practices include:
Alternative options other than the use of radio telemetry be thoroughly evaluated before choosing technologies that create wildlife exposure to RF.
Researchers planning a radio-telemetry study should strive to ensure that all study animals are affected as little as possible by the transmitter and antenna,
Full peer and veterinary review prior to application for funding and project initiation should include an assessment of adverse effects of the tagging method—including specific EMF exposures, (e.g., frequencies used, signal characteristics regarding pulse rates/peak exposures, and transmission power density)—how to ideally avoid or minimize those impacts.
The paper concludes:
"Wildlife professionals have a moral obligation and responsibility to base their research and field studies on sound science, and that should include consideration of the impacts from EMF. We need to seriously question if the continued use of radio tracking devices, gear, and technologies are worth their impacts on the species whose populations we supposedly are trying to protect and maintain."
Manville AM II, Levitt BB and Lai HC (2024) Health and environmental effects to wildlife from radio telemetry and tracking devices—state of the science and best management practices. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1283709. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1283709
