Thanks, Syd, I am interested in feedback to this as I am trying to
elicit as much good data as possible on this subject. Opinions are fine
but supported data is better.
A new bird species can be described on as little as a bone fragment, but
the avian scientific world prefers specimen collection when possible.
Any of the ornithological individuals with publishing experience that I
have spoken with have told me that the need for so many skins is because
of individual variation, sexual dimorphism, and aging characteristics in
plumage. This is not my definition of adequate, and I personally would
like to see more caution on collection when the population of a new
species is unknown.
Syd's comment that bird song does not automatically define a species is
correct, but the trend that all ornithologists now see that voice is
often the first clue towards highlighting a bird species. I am somewhat
familiar with Australian birds, and Aussie taxonomy is taking the same
direction that taxonomy is globally. Speciation is increasing with
detailed studies of avian DNA, and the point I was trying to make is
that speciation is good - governments are under more pressure to save
species than subspecies and their legislation seldom addresses organisms
below the species level.
I am not going to argue who has done what for conservation. I firmly
believe that the human race has simply never done enough, and one needs
only to look at Ecuador and the work of the Jocotoco Foundation to see
what can be done by the birding community. Costa Rica is another good
example where birding really helped snowball the value of ecotourism.
This is not minor. National Parks creation is an entirely different
thing than creating protected lands for particular species. Parks are
made for many reasons, and we need many more if we hope to avoid the
island concept of preservation. The impact of birding is really only
35-40 years old, whereas our civilized outlook on the need for parks is
somewhat older.
There are certainly times when playback should be limited or avoided.
For example, its use in parks where migrants congregate is a good
example. These birds are exhausted and do not need to move more than
necessary or be taken off of their feeding. However, will we ever see
people banned from these places because they do exactly the same thing
to the birds by simply approaching them? When I stated that it is not
likely that we will leave the birds alone, I was referring to the fact
that birding is so popular now that people are not going to stop birding
on all of its levels in any way that is not going to disturb the birds.
There are more examples - playback in heavily birded areas can cause
confusion and frustration for birders in the area, and rare species need
to be viewed with more diligent ethics than common ones. The reason for
this is simply that they undergo more pressure from birders and are more
vulnerable.
And this is where I must respond to Martyn's comment about seeing a
birder pulling a bird out of its cover using playback. Stop and think
about what you are saying here. How many birds are flushed from cover by
the actions of birders, humans and every other intrusion into a bird's
life? If exposure was the primary detriment to playback, then, by volume
alone, we would have to ban birding. The act of birding puts us in a
proximity to them that constantly creates a stress of some sort and
exposes them. The number of times that any birder sees a bird well and
walks away without the bird having shown reactivity is very low in
percentage to the number of total encounters.
Playback is not confined to birds. Try a moose in rutting season and you
will get quite a reaction. However, the reaction you get is a natural
one, provided the person creating the playback does it with knowledge of
his/her subject. When I listen to tape from myself and other recordists,
I frequently discover that the reason we got a good tape to start with
is that there is a distant call of the same species in the background.
This is particularly true in the tropics, but it applies in temperate
areas, also. Playback should mimic a bird naturally or you aren't doing
it correctly.
I want to hear all of the arguments from people who think playback is a
bad, unnecessary thing. The problem I have is that I keep hearing
unsubstantiated perceptions and comments that do not reflect the gravity
of the tone of the comment. I will post shortly on everything that I
have personally witnessed as effects from playback. I have had a lot of
experience because I have done a lot of inventory work in tropical
situations. My caution comes from this experience, and it has helped me
create limits to what I do. Also, I believe that playback in North
America, or the Palearctic for that matter, has a few different wrinkles
than it would in a seldom-visited tropical location, and I will make an
effort to discuss that separately.
Scott Connop
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|