[Top] [All Lists]

Re: recording owl vocalizations

Subject: Re: recording owl vocalizations
From: "M, J, & V Phinney" <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:09:10 -0700
Sounds like a progressive policy - but who and how is "unreasonable"
determined? Likely to lead to lengthy court discussions in the USA.

Mark Phinney

on 6/28/05 4:38 AM, Syd Curtis at  wrote:

> Further to the postings quoted below, back in the 1980s I was Assistant
> Director (Legislation & Policies) in the National Parks & Wildlife Service
> of Queensland; a somewhat frustrating job, for it was created to move me
> away from my previous management role where my natural bias towards actually
> conserving nature was interfering too much with the political wheeling and
> dealing of the Service Director.  (I was given what in local public service
> jargon, is know as the "lateral arabesque":   And for that same reason, he
> immediately directed that there were to be no written policies!
> Which left me with legislation, and my last major task before retiring in
> 1988, was to redraft the National Parks Regulations.  Pertinent to present
> considerations was one regulation which at least still existed in
> Queensland's 1994 Nature Conservation Regulations.
> After the legal experts had edited my draft, it reads:
> Noise control
> 88.(1)  A person must not use a generator, compressor or other similar
> motor in a protected area -
> (a) unless its use is permitted under a regulatory notice or permit; or
> (b) in contravention of a regulatory notice or permit.
> (2)  A person must not use a radio, tape recorder or other sound or
> amplifier system in a way that may cause unreasonable disturbance to a
> person or native animal* in a protected area.
> I reckoned there was no chance of getting accepted a regulation overtly
> banning the use of playback unless for purposes that assist in the
> conservation of the species.  Hence the above approach: if playback
> unreasonably disturbs a bird, it would be illegal and a ranger could
> instruct a person to cease.
> Worth considering?
> Syd Curtis (in Australia)
> *  BTW, The Act under which the regulations were made defines "animal" as
> "any member of the animal kingdom (other than human), (whether alive or
> dead), and includes etc., etc. ..."
> ----------------------


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

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