What bothers me here is why should people expect to see the bird/birds on
these trips? This is exactly what I am saying, Tour operators use play back
to justify their trips and guarantee to the client they will see x amount of
birds etc.
I have seen many of these operators in action and many of them ask me for
recordings for which I refuse.
Bird watchers demands are high and they expect to see what the tour operator
advertises. I saw a Black-backed woodpecker only this year abandon its nest
leaving fledglings behind because of this very intrusion.
As a society many people disrespect nature and do not see the consequences
and the dangers.
Yes, there are some people responsible with the use of playback but I can
only speak from experience, I see more bad than good.
Martyn
****************************************
Martyn Stewart
Bird and Animal Sounds Digitally Recorded at:
http://www.naturesound.org
Redmond. Washington. USA
N47.65543 W121.98428
e-mail:
Tel: 425-898-0462
Make every Garden a wildlife Habitat!
*****************************************
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Paul Coopmans
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:00 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Playback and Ethics
Scott is absolutely right. Note that in the endeavor of getting closer to
the sound source one could not only disturb a nesting bird or trample its
nest (if we're dealing with a ground nester) but also we can have an impact
on the vegetation by leaving a trail. In the Neotropics I'd rather call in
a bird to be viewed from the trail (of course using the playback
judiciously) instead of having the entire group crash into the forest to
approach a calling bird, risking saplings of giant emergent trees to be
trampled, or even bird nests ...
At 10:31 27-10-05 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I guess we need to bring up this subject every now and then just to get
>everyone stirred up and feeling alive. One of the problems is here is
>that the aims of many mambers of this group are different. There is
>very little need to use playback for North American species as we have
>excellent sound catalogues available to us here and identification
>should not be difficult for anyone willing to go to the trouble. It is
>true that many tour leaders doing trips in NA use it so that their
>clients may get a look at species that they may not normally see. Many
>of these folks are older and would not have a chance to view these
>things on their own. I personally know many of these leaders and they
>are experts in the use of sound for playback, but there will always be a
>few that make a mess and leave a bad taste in our mouths.
>
>Occasionally you may get an aberrant or alternate call to something
>here, and it is certainly of more value to know what you have. Anyone
>doing soundscapes will not have the same need as as a survey birder to
>know what sound he has captured. Overseas, things are different. We do
>not have good sound catalogues of most tropical countries, and this
>includes Peru and Ecuador where certain individuals have published
>extensive works. One of the reasons is that bird song is more highly
>evolved in the tropics (as is avian diversity in general), and many
>birds have 4,5 or more calls in their repertoire. It is difficult to
>research many. I know Paul Cooppmans and I have swapped recordings on
>occasion just so we could put more ears to a sound. Birds, such as
>Northern and Southern Chestnut-tailed Antbird, only came to notice
>through their differing calls.
>
>However, the main point I wish to make about ethics is that one needs to
>look at the big picture. One of the most common pieces of advice given
>on this list for improved recording quality is to get as close to the
>bird as possible. Normally, when a bird is singing, it is for
>territorial reasons. How many recordists here knew where a bird's nest
>was when they were recording? Precious few, based on my knowledge of how
>difficult it is to find nests and what the aims of many of our group
>members would be. Birds abandon nests simply because of human proximity,
>a fact well documented as opposed to our knowledge of problems
>associated with playback. Certainly playback can be done irresponsibly,
>but that is why many of us have taken the time to publish guidelines so
>that it can be done with a certain level of responsibility. All of us
>who interact with birds have an impact. All of us who might own stocks
>of companies that increase deforestation have an impact. Everyone who
>buys products that promote deforestation have an impact. Ethics are
>nice, but they need to be viewed in a broad perspective and promoted
>with a sense of realism that is useful to recipients of such knowledge.
>No one is right or wrong here. This is why this discussion is useful.
>Everyone's input helps develop the concepts necessary to reponsible
>birding, responsible recording, and, most importantly, responsible field
>ethics for all of us.
>
>Scott Connop
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>"Un servicio de Megadatos - Ecuanet, en telecomunicaciones nosotros lo
hacemos posible"
>Escaneado por IMSS Trend Micro Enterprise Protection Strategy
>
>
"Microphones are not ears,
Loudspeakers are not birds,
A listening room is not nature."
Klas Strandberg
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|