Dear All,
The use of call-down for anything except strictly controlled scientific pur=
poses should be discouraged. It is intrusive and can be seriously distupti=
ve to the species concerned.
As for the recording one would obtain, well, the sounds recorded would be a=
response to a challenge within the subjects territory and would tend to be=
an alarm or anxiety calls. Even if the subject responds with a song the c=
hallenge would be there, and it could be argued that the sound recorded wou=
ld not be the true song of the species.
Certain species are very territorial and great distress will occur.
Call-down for recording sound purposes should not be used.
Regards
Roger C Boughton
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:22:15 2005
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:42:12 -0800
From: "Gordon Hempton" <>
Subject: RE: Song Playback or Call-down technique.
Wonderful article, thank you for sending it. When I was in Spain, I noticed
that live canaries were used to lure in their mates, which in turn became
slaves.
Now another question:
Has anyone out there developed another technique that they feel is an
ethical and viable substitute? For example, feeding stations or landscaping
to attract a particular favored species, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Von Gausig
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Song Playback or Call-down technique.
At 09:15 AM 2/27/2002, you wrote:
>I'm wondering if anyone uses song playback to call down their subject,
>shortening the sound hunt by drawing the animal in close and provoking a
>loud response? Playback of songs/calls is widely used in owl census
>(particularly for Northern Spotted Owl, for example where a very large
area
>must be surveyed with limited resources), and also to bring a bull elk i=
n
>closer, trumpeting boldly, etc. It has also been so overused in the past
>that places like Cave Creek in the SW have signs posted "NO SOUND
>RECORDING."
>
>PLAYBACK seems to me like chumming for fish at best, or worse, out and
out
>wildlife harassment. Is there anyone out there in the group that would
like
>to defend 'playback' as a ethical technique? I'd be interested is hearin=
g
>the views/confessions of someone who has done it or perhaps continues to
do
>it.
This is a subject that is sure to raise some controversy - it always does=
.
There is apparently no really good study that definitively says whether
playback is harmful or not. Most in the group know that I do not condone
it, except under strict scientifically necessary guidelines, such as
necessary species surveys, etc. I do have an article that was sent to me
by
the author, Bill Gilbert, and which was written for the Nature Sounds
Society bulletin, Naturesounds.
Here it is in its entirety, long, but interesting:
>Dear Doug,
>
> I am forwarding you an electronic copy of my article on playback,
>written for the Nature Sounds Society bulletin, Naturesounds. If you
choose
>to, you may send it out to members of the Nature Recordists' website. I
know
>we respectfully disagree on some questions of the propriety of using
recorded
>playback in the field to attract birds or stimulate them to sing. On th=
e
>other hand, we both seem to agree that it should not be used in some
cases
>(endangered species, crowded birding areas), and should be used in other
>cases (scientific research, pest control).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bill
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>TO BE(GIN PLAYBACK) OR NOT TO BE(GIN PLAYBACK), THAT IS THE QUESTION!
>
>Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to conform to the wishes of outraged
birders,
>and to cease using recorded playback, or to take arms against these
purists,
>and by blatantly using playback, silence them.
>
>By Bill Gilbert, Ph.D.
>
>
> As an avid birder in the eastern United States, your goal each
> spring is
>to see all of over thirty wood warbler species that regularly pass
through
>your state. Thus one morning late in May you stand by the old canal bed=
,
>binoculars and tape recorder in hand, trying to sight the uncommon and
>secretive Connecticut Warbler, your last unchecked species. The
>long-abandoned canal, filled with burdock, poison hemlock, poison ivy,
>blackberries, nettle, and every other brand of scratching and urticating
>plant known to man, is a perfect haunt for your elusive prey.
Impatiently
>you roll a tape of the Connecticut's song. No response! For over an
hour
>you work the canal's edge. No response! Finally, from deep in the dark
>tangles, a response! The bird is shy, however, and comes no closer. So
you
>plunge into the brush. Thorns tear your ankles and nettles numb your
hands,
>but you press on. Now, just beyond a huge black willow, your quarry
answers.
> Peering around the trunk you finally spot it: another birder with a
tape
>recorder!
> This vignette, showing how birders can fool each other, highlights
just
>one possible problem of using recorded playback in birding, nature
recording,
>and science. Perhaps because I am a birder, a recordist, and a scientis=
t
all
>in one, Natursounds Editor Sharon Perry asked me to write an
authoritative
>article on this controversial issue. Little did she realize that I
didn't
>know beans about the subject.
> But I am resourceful! I could draw on two decades of using
playback in
>the field for bird banding and research, I knew the ornithological
>literature, and I knew how to use the library. I quickly went there to
find
>an authoritative article. In Current Contents, under keywords "playback=
"
and
>"recorded playback," I found title after title on neat ways scientists
use
>playback to solve taxonomic, acoustic, and behavioral problems, mostly
with
>birds. Unfortunately, there was nothing about playback's dark
underbelly. I
>then turned to my personal memory of the bird song and behavior
literature
>dating back several decades. Unfortunately, my data banks came up empty=
.
> Back to square one and clueless, I contacted Sharon. I told her =
I
had
>lots of great information on playback, but did she possibly know of any
>additional sources (just to cover my bases, of course). Sharon said the
>Nature Recordists Website recently had hosted a discussion thread on
playback
>ethics, and she suggested that I check out the website, and download the
>relevent discussions. I was off and running (or at least I thought).
> Reviewing the interchanges of the playback ethics thread, I was
struck
>by the thoughtfulness and sophistication of the discussion. Seven
>participants, including Doug Von Gausig (coordinator of the Website) and
>Bernie Krause came down on the side of using little if any playback for
>recreational/commercial purposes (e.g., attracting birds for viewing or
>stimulating them to sing for recordings). Four participants, including
Dave
>Lauten from Oregon and J. R. Fletcher (a former birding guide in the
tropics)
>saw no harm with moderate use of recreational/commercial playback.
>Interestingly, participants on both sides of the issue condoned moderate
>playback use for scientific/management purposes, such as for separating
>"sibling" species of birds, documenting range extensions, or broadcastin=
g
>distress calls to deter agricultural pests.
> So the controversy lay with recreational/commercial use, and
democracy
>would declare the "purists" (those against playback use) the winners.
But
>this article isn't about democracy, so let's review the arguments. Thos=
e
>against recreational playback said it greatly disturbs birds, makes thei=
r
>behavior and vocalizations abnormal, and can harm their nesting and
>viability. Syd Curtis, an eloquent Aussie, admitted to having caused a
rare
>Albert Lyrebird "extreme distress" many years ago by bombarding it with
its
>own song. Doug Von Gausig stated that playback elicits "---fear and
>defensive reactions, and other uncommon, unnatural responses." and that
"---
>we (don't) have the right to inject these influences ---." Jim Morgan
cited
>two Western Kingbirds that "--- became extremely agitated --- and then
>promptly left the area (after hearing playback)." Finally, Marty
Michener
>expressed his views with "I have watched poor birders, repeatedly playin=
g
the
>same cuts to birds in the field, never even noticing the male (bird) has
>responded, but they are too yang-adrenaline-testosterone poisoned to eve=
n
>see." Obviously, playback raises the hackles on some people's necks.
> On the other side of the aisle, Dave Lauten argued that response
to
>playback is "quite natural" He also suggested that man-made problems,
from
>habitat loss to oil spills, put much more pressure on birds than does
>occasional playback. J. R. Fletcher (the former bird guide in Ecuador)
said
>he saw no adverse effects among tropical birds from using recorded
playback
>over many years. J. R. tested his thesis of no lasting effects by
subjecting
>territorial males of seven temperate-zone species to playback. He found
>birds attracted to temporary playback usually took less than a minute to
>return to normal behavior. The extreme was a Hutton Vireo which gave an
>altered call for 30 minutes. On the other hand, individuals of five
other
>species gave no response at all to playback.
> So what is the answer? Is playback harmful or not? Dave Lauten,
T.
>Stephenson, and Alvin Cearley asked if anyone could cite an actual
published
>study on the subject. J. R. Fletcher said he knew of none, Jim Morgan
said
>"I'm sure they can be found," and Doug Von Gausig suggested that such
studies
>might be located where playback had been used to control pests (such as
>driving Starlings from airports). Aside from these inconclusive
responses,
>however, the silence on actual studies was deafening.
> Now I had done a literature search, consulted my memory banks, and
>assimilated the opinions of some the best and brightest in the recording
>world, and to a great extent I still was back at square one. My last
hope to
>make better sense of the issue lay in reviewing my own experiences as a
>researcher, bander, recordist, and watcher of birds.
> Initially let me say there are circumstances where I personally
believe
>recreational/commercial playback should not be used. For example,
recorded
>playback is banned on the breeding grounds of the endangered Kirtland's
>Warbler in Michigan, and I would concur for three reasons. The ban migh=
t
>preclude the possibility that a birder (they flock to the area for guide=
d
>tours) might place the Kirtland's on his or her life list based on
hearing
>some other birder's Sony. The ban also might shield Fish and Wildlife
>Service bureaucrats from possible criticism that they were endangering
>Kirtland's Warbler reproduction or viability. Finally, since the
Kirtland's
>is endangered, if there is any possibility that lots of tourists with
tape
>recorders could disrupt normal breeding, then we should err on the side
of
>caution. I also understand that playback of a certain owl species
(possibly
>the Whiskered Screech) is banned from a heavily touristed area of
southern
>Arizona. Again, I would concur with what possibly is more of a courtesy
to
>the birder than to the bird. In general (as my opening vignette might
>suggest) we should practice utmost courtesy in using playback where othe=
r
>birders abound (minimally, yell "fore" before pressing the button).
> Courtesy to birders is one thing, but what about possible effects
of
>playback on the birds themselves? We have established that opinions on
this
>are divided, and that there likely are few if any published studies on
the
>matter. The fact that no such studies can be readily found might give u=
s
a
>clue, however. Scientists, like investors, seek the most return for
their
>investment, and thus choose research projects that prior knowledge
suggests
>will give good results. For example, few scientists would search for th=
e
>Sasquatch. If DNA testing on a recovered hair sample indicated an
unknown
>species of ape, however, scientists likely would take up the search.
Perhaps
>few if any scientists have tested long-term playback effects on birds
because
>they have little a-priori evidence that such effects exist.
> During many years of field research with Wilson's and
Orange-crowned
>Warblers I have seen no evidence for ill effects from playback. The
birds
>responding to playback mainly are males (a fact also pointed out in the
>ethics thread), and those males tend to respond most strongly before
mating
>(and thus before nesting begins). Therefore, even if playback did cause
>adverse behavior in a male before mating, it likely would minimally
affect
>the actual nesting process. Also, as Walt Knapp of the ethics thread
pointed
>out, even if a bird does respond strongly to playback, we cannot assume
that
>the response necessarily is detrimental. Speaking anthropomorphically, =
I
>agree with Walt that a strongly responsive male may just be getting
practice
>and confidence in driving away intruders. I back his view with
observations.
> My older male warblers tend to hang back, responding to playback only
with
>song, if at all. It seems they have been through it all before, and can
deal
>with any rival. New territorial birds, however, often show strong
playback
>response. Until they have a few encounters and victories under their
belts,
>they tend to appear frantic (which tends to make them great subjects for
mist
>netting). So experience in dealing with intruder song (even playback)
may
>be a good thing for a male bird.
> Another observation that has molded my opinion on playback is that
> rival
>male birds tend to have a hierarchy of response toward each other.
Initial
>response tends to be with song. If song does not settle a dispute (e.g.=
,
the
>location of a territorial border), then the conflicting males often stop
>singing and confront each other with chip notes and aggressive displays
>(conflicting Wilson's Warbler males often circle each other while
flipping
>their wings). If things get real serious, males can end up in
"claw-to-claw"
>combat, and I occasionally see two "locked" males flutter to the ground
and
>continue pecking at each other even while lying in the duff. The point
here
>is that, while inexperienced males may get their adrenalin up in
responding
>aggressively to song, established males seem to regard song as just a
first
>stage of aggression, and something they easily can deal with.
> Finally, the thing that most leads me to believe that hearing
temporary
>playback likely has little lasting effect on birds is that, in addition
to
>being a recordist, I also am a bird bander. Banding is an essential
>operation for many, perhaps most, avian field studies; only through colo=
r
>banding can one tell individual birds apart. Banding often means
capturing
>one's subjects in a mist net. I hope I do not offend those acutely
attuned
>to the feelings of birds by revealing the details of an average netting
and
>banding operation. Elliot McClure, the Dean of American bird banding,
>expressed it bluntly in writing: "From the standpoint of the bird, the
net is
>an abominable creation. Birds do not like to be netted." Imagine being
>snagged from mid air by a giant cobweb, having a massive predator descen=
d
on
>you, capture you, carry you off in a bag, then capture you again and
tweak
>your every extremity before finally letting you go. If the pecking on
one's
>hand doesn't suggest the bird is unhappy, then the struggling in the net=
,
the
>bag, and in the hand should. This struggling sometimes leads to
exhaustion,
>and good banders are trained to see its first signs. When a bird's
eyelids
>begin to flutter, measurements cease and the bird is held softly in the
hand
>as it "falls asleep." Within about 15 minutes the bird recovers, looks
>around, and flies away. Although likely confused, it is unhurt.
> Even though the process of netting and banding is stressful for a
bird,
>only once have I seen a lasting behavioral effect. A female orange crow=
n
I
>netted while building her nest subsequently stopped building and
abandoned
>her mate (never since have I netted a nest-building female). Otherwise,
I
>have netted and banded hundreds of Orange-crowned and Wilson's Warblers
and
>not one male has abandoned its territory, and not one female has
abandoned
>her eggs, following the process. Males resume singing, sometimes within
the
>hour but certainly by the next day, and females always return to their
eggs
>within the hour. I also have seen no evidence that breeding success
(e.g.,
>hatching rate, fledging rate) is harmed in any way.
> It is possible that the behavioral responses of some bird species
are
>different from those of my warblers. However, I know of no official
>restrictions on banding any species based on known adverse behavioral
>responses (such as likely territorial abandonment). My master banding
permit
>allows for capture of "all species except waterfowl, eagles or endan
>gered/threatened species"
> The reason I have gone on and on about netting and banding is to
>emphasize how temporarily traumatic the experience is for a bird.
However,
>if birds typically can survive netting and banding with no continuing
>effects, then hearing playback may be way down on a list of things that
could
>cause a bird lasting problems. I believe other field ornithologists who
mist
>net and band would think similarly. This familiarity with the process o=
f
>netting and banding, plus a general knowledge of bird behavior, may
partially
>explain why scientists have been reluctant to study possible adverse
playback
>effects. To quote J. R. Fletcher from the ethics thread: "(I) firmly
believe
>them (birds) to be resilient scrappy beings quite able to take in stride
far
>greater upset than an occasional spurious voice followed by a brief
search
>for an intruder that turns out not to be there."
> Even though little if any research apparently has been directed
toward
>the supposed dark side of playback, could such studies be designed to
settle
>the playback controversy? There would be many complicating factors, as
Marty
>Michener pointed out in the ethics thread. Also, a direct test using
normal
>playback conditions probably would not work. What might work is to test
>extreme conditions of playback. One might start by issuing playback
>continually from dawn until dusk to territorial males of a given bird
>species. Control territories would receive no playback. If effects wer=
e
>evident (e.g., if playback males abandoned their territories or did not
>attract mates), then in the next series of tests one might reduce
playback by
>50% (perhaps one hour on and one hour off during the day). Over a serie=
s
of
>tests one might reduce playback frequency until there was no measurable
>effect on the birds. One might presume playback frequencies below that
level
>to be "safe." Of course, to conduct such a lengthy, loud experiment one
>might need a large private wooded estate for a study area, preferably on=
e
>patrolled by bloodthirsty Dobermans so playback equipment would not be
>vandalized. Your local park probably would not do.
> So that's the skinny on use of recorded playback, at least as I
>interpret it. Most concerned with this issue seem to support playback
for
>scientific/management purposes, but not for recreational/commercial uses
in
>heavily touristed areas (especially where there are rare target species)=
.
A
>fairly even split of opinion exists, however, for the general use of
>recreational/commercial playback, and for whether that playback might
>compromise target species' reproduction, survival, and behavior. Effort=
s
to
>locate published studies on the topic have come up empty. This apparent
>paucity of controlled research might seem surprising until viewed from
the
>perspective of scientists best situated to carry out the studies. That
such
>scientists apparently have minimal enthusiasm for the studies might
suggest
>minimal concern for the "problem."
> This discourse likely will not settle the recorded playback debate=
.
I
>really have only entered my opinion into the mix, and given my reasons.
Even
>counting my vote in favor of moderate recreational/commercial playback
use
>would still leave the tally at seven to five in favor of the "purists."
>Perhaps only a controlled study, possibly structured as I have indicated
>above, would start to put the debate on a more empirical basis. Until
then
>the question of whether or not playback should be used in the field,
when,
>and under what circumstances, likely will remain mired in the sometimes
>contentious arena of personal opinion and anecdotal observation.
>
>
>Bill Gilbert
>
>
>*McClure, Elliott. 1988. Bird Banding. Pacific Grove, CA: The Boxwood
Press
>(p. 189).
Doug Von Gausig
Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
Moderator
Nature Recordists e-mail group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|