naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Equipment

Subject: Re: Equipment
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:31:02 -0500
From: "Rich Peet" <>

> I admit to having 15 lbs of bird seed in the back of the minivan for 
> use in recording.  With some species it is a great technique to drop 
> a few pounds of seed in an area where the target was seen and set a 
> mic near by.

Like the hunters around here who bait areas to provide deer to shoot.

> I can live with this as an exit point.  Just don't expect me to be 
> the one helping others in "good" playback as I can not do that.  I 
> see two main groups of abusers.  The experienced guides and the new 
> to the field watchers.  I can't change the guides and they don't need 
> help. I also wish to discourage the new and underexperienced.  So far 
> the photographers and videographers just are a non-factor.  Most of 
> the Gov. people abusing seem to always treat wildlife as property and 
> no comment from anyone will influence them either.

Ummm, did you check out the links provided by Daniel? In there you will 
find a study that set out expecting to scientifically document damage 
due to playback and failed to do that. However it did document quite a 
bit of damage by photographers. Probably because playback is mostly used 
on males out in their territory and only for relatively short periods, 
but photographers hover around nests for sometimes days. Nest 
abandonment associated with photographers is documented.

Also not that in spite of the study they commissioned showing 
photographers being a danger and failing to show playback being a 
danger, the regulators regulated playback and did nothing about 
photography. As I've noted, playback regulation is more emotionalism 
than science.

> It's about the wildlife and should never be about peoples rights.

Nice thought, but in the end people pay the bills, so will expect some 
return. This sort of attitude has insured lots of opposition to real 
environmental needs as well as the less real ones. Regulation needs to 
justify itself a lot better. One ill considered regulation often does 
more harm in the end than dozens of well thought out regulations can do 
good. People focus on the bad one and throw it all out. And often 
proceed to quickly make sure it can't be regulated again. Like recently 
happened when the courts tossed out a good chunk of the wetlands 
protection. Everywhere landowners were quickly filling in and draining 
the unprotected wetlands. And that can all be traced back to very poor 
identification of wetlands in the first place.

Walt




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU