I wrote:
<<I think those who say that playback is "just for the sake of modern
convenience or for lack of patience..." owe us a little more than
sarcasm. Let's make sure that they too contribute alternative ideas.>>
John Hartog wrote:
<<Do you feel attacked?>>
Not personally, but on behalf of honest debate, yes. See following.
<< I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.>>
Then you should choose your words more carefully. Notwithstanding
Martyn's agonized plea for me not to "jump down throats and read e-mails
completely wrong," there is an important point to be made. Without
honest discourse we are only trying to win arguments, not arrive at a
truth. When you, John, ask a question and then follow it with a
sarcastic bit of gamesmanship, you are trying to score points. Try
imagining a response like, "And are you waiting motionlessly, silently
observing, because you are a Luddite with no ambition?" A bit unfair,
don't you agree?
Ask a question without including an accusation. Wait for the answer.
Ask for clarification. Repeat.
<<So Chuck, what are your ideas for alternatives to playback?>>
I don't have any that prove out. The benefits of playback are
well-known, the detriments much less so. I keep an open mind - if
someone can go beyond opinions, feelings and answering the specifics
with generalities, I'm eager to listen.
The big question is quantifying the detrimental effects, if and when
they occur. For example, the word 'stress' is used, and certainly we can
stress birds with playback, but how badly? Houston Astro fans were
certainly stressed by being wiped out in the World Series, but I haven't
heard any calls for banning professional baseball. These stress effects
are transitory and there's always next year. (Martyn, this is an
analogy; analogies are imperfect and this one should not be taken
literally.)
We know that birds can recover remarkably quickly from serious
population losses. (And yes, some can't, like Passenger Pigeons.) One
question is, what effect does playback stress on individuals have on the
general population? If playback prevents a pair from reproducing that
season, for example, how serious is that damage in the big picture? I
know of no studies drawing conclusions on this.
If you believe in the sanctity of each individual bird, then the
question of individual stress is ethically much more important. As a
recreational birder, if I thought that a specific instance of playback
would risk physical injury to an individual bird, I wouldn't do it
because my seeing it is not worth the damage. However, I think the
population approach to damage assessment is the most valid model out
there, so I can't argue with people who use playback where I wouldn't -
not without proof. It's their personal decision versus mine.
--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA
Membership, Newsletter, Web manager
Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society
www.smbas.org
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|