Scott Connop wrote:
>However, the main point I wish to make about ethics is that one needs to
>look at the big picture.
>
An excellent post and an excellent main point. Among the many things
not discussed yet is our ethical starting point, before we even get into
the field. Do we believe that every bird is sacred and saving every
nestling is paramount? Or do we believe that the *species* is what
matters and individual birds are of secondary importance? In addition to
many questions like that, we have very little data on the effects of
playback; yes there are studies, but not nearly enough. We really don't
know what's going on. Those of us with anecdotes have to realize that
they can be useful, but they are snapshots of the situation; yes, we may
see disturbance today, but what does that mean tomorrow when we're gone?
And speaking of anecdotes, I think I heard this one in Venezuela,
but a nagging voice tells me it might have been Panama. It doesn't help
that I can't remember the name of the recordist. Anyway, this recordist
worked way back when reel-to-reel, vacuum tube recoders, low-sensitivity
mics and heavy parabolas were top line field equipment. Typically the
recorder was on and running for hours. The tapes are still available,
and our trip leader (Steve Hilty if I was in Venezuela) told us about
one of them. There is a bird singing, and then another species joins in.
There is some human rustling around followed several seconds later by a
shotgun blast. Apparently a non-target bird had been continually
interfering with the 'important' bird. Problem solved.
-- Chuck
========
Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA
Membership, Newsletter, Web manager
Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society
www.smbas.org
========
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|