Bird feeders at state parks are now being discouraged here.
But that does not mean that it in any way is similar to the issue of
electronic playback.
I am one of those tree hugger bambi followers and proud of it.
There is a differnce in playback for frogs compared to birds. Song
differences may likely be the principal reason for many subspecies in
birds but not in frogs. This makes at least getting the song right
more important and getting the playback not at all preferred.
That does not make it right for my local State to use playback to
capture every found Northern Cricket frog in the last pond in the
State for the purpose of cutting off toes for genetic testing.=20
Especially when the only reason for the testing is to try to prove
the frog is alien and really extinct from the state so no protection
of the land is warrented. It may make sense if there were more than a
couple dozen but this doesn't.
Rich
--- In Walter Knapp <>
wrote:
> From: "Barb Beck" <>
>
> > I stand by my statement that we stupidly caused the bird to
expose itself in
> > an unnatural way by our playback and would never repeat that
mistake.
>
> The stupid mistake was getting involved in such a contest in the
first
> place. Let's see, if playback is ruled out, what's next? A company
of
> beaters? Playback is only one of many ways the contest disrupted
the
> birds, I'm sure, don't just single it out for all the blame. The
> Playback was used because the contest set time limits on how long
you
> could observe in order to see the bird. By spending more time,
virtually
> any bird can be seen.
>
> Yesterday, some equipment I use caused a bird to expose itself in a
> unnatural way and it was taken by a hawk. Should I stop using that
> equipment? The equipment, btw is a bird feeder. It causes whole
flocks
> of birds to expose themselves in a very inviting way.
>
> Walt
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|