I do see that there are a number of good reasons for playback and a
large number of abuses are out there too.
For me, I can not justify its use. I simply don't have a good reason
to use it. I prefer to submit hunted species tracks that others
could not use for playback. When I gave Jim a good turkey I left the
chipper in the cut to make it less desirable for hunters to use at
high volume. I am more concerned locally about electronic hunters
than the local woodland bird people. I have yet to run into another
recordist in the woods of MN. It is not that hard for hunters to buy
good tracks from sporting stores. I just try to make sure those
tracks are not mine.
When I submited my permit request asking for 24/7 state park land
access for the spring, I included the statement that I don't use
playback and will not on any state owned land. I hope that is worth
something to them. I hope more that my recordings are worth something
to them.
--- In "Gordon Hempton" <> 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 in
> 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
hearing
> the views/confessions of someone who has done it or perhaps
continues to do
> it.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|