This is the first time that I have encountered this discussion on the
group although I did see archive references. One of the greater problems
I see in this is that we tend to put on our blinders when discussing a
single topic. We can argue that the entire exercise of birding is
intrusive to birds. The simple act of approaching birds often has
detrimental effects, particularly in breeding, and the number of people
that invade spots like Pt. Pelee and High Island when these areas are
being used by exhausted migrants is enormous. All of our consumer habits
can be tied to resource usage which is often detrimental to any species,
and particularly birds. I have heard so many holier than thou comments
on this subject and yet it is no different than any other aspect of our
curious pursuit of wildlife. Lang's comments I appreciate fully. The act
of playback should be done as naturally and responsibly as possible. In
my 20 years of doing this, this is always the best way to attract the
bird in the first place. When you do not need it, don't use it. This is
not because playback is a heinous crime against Mother Nature, it is the
same simple principle that should guide all of our studies of wildlife.
Enjoy responsibly. There are always going to be abusers, or birders
ignorant of the consequences of their actions. That's why ABA has such a
comprehensive list of birding ethics. But the singling out of playback
from all other aspects of the hobby/science is ridiculous. As a tool for
species verification, it is without peer. As a bird bander, I cannot
even begin to compare the intrusive nature of handling a bird after
capture to playback. As for its application in commercial work, most
people that travel to far flung destinations do so on a time limited
basis. Whereas the researcher may have all the time in the world to try
and see a tapaculo or an antpitta, most folks would never have this
experience outside of a playback opportunity. And one leader using
playback to show one bird is always going to be far less intrusive than
20 people trying to see a bird that does not like to show itself.
Whether we like it or not, people want to see birds. Their interest has
had far reaching effects in promoting conservation in parts of the world
that would have been deforested years ago.
With all of this said, I have yet to experience any long term
detrimental influences on any bird that I have used playback on in 20
years. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but I have noted many
detrimental effects of people's sheer proximity to birds by simply being
a birder. In my experience, it has been birders that I have found to be
more offended by tape usage and not the birds. There are many reasons
for this and I will not go into this now as it is almost a separate
subject. Tape use should be ruled by common sense. In my old article for
Birders Journal several years ago, I talked at more length about this.
Use it sparingly and wisely and you will leave a minimal impact. In the
long run, it will be used on few individuals of any species. Compare
this to the impact on larger numbers of birds by everyone who birds in
all of the places that they bird, and you will see how out of proportion
this discussion has become.
I apologize for the length of this, but, the frightening thing is that
there is a lot more that could be said in evaluating playack. Just for
future thought, many of us were quite curious as to the coincidence of
Eared Trogons disappearing from Cave Creek a couple of years after
playback had been banned. Perhaps the elicitation of a territorial
response gave the birds more impetus to remain and colonize the area in
the first place. We will never know.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|