OK, I get the message. I know implied closure when I see it. When the
list owner of the group steps up and not so subtly suggests that we
create a code before we have even presented a meaningful and substantive
look at a subject, it is time to stop wasting my time and go back to
reading posts on the various minutiae of equipment design and acoustic
theory. I thought this was the Naturecordists group, not the
Naturecordists Equipment group, or the Naturecordists Computer Sound
Editing group. Playback is an important source of much of the sound out
there in libraries and archives, and is a fundamental part of how we get
sound and document it properly. We have generated and swapped more
messages on a few quirks of the Edirol or the HHB Portadisc.
I have tried to present some data from an experienced observer so that
we could actually work from an enlightened point of view and not simply
adopt the views of the unenlightened. This has not had anything to do
with being argumentative. On the contrary, I had hoped for more reaction
and argument, just as long as it added good material to the discussion.
In fact, I have tried to be supportive of comments from people such as
John Hertog because John represents a view of a person that wants
evidence and not unsubstantiated opinion. My biggest criticism of the
pro playback side is that we have been too lazy to sit down and document
our position and use our knowledge, and instead have relied on simply
criticizing the sharp lack of evidence on the other side of the issue.
The ABA, and even the folks that adopted playback into the Endangered
Species (who consulted the ABA), did not work from a fully evidentiary
database. They merely accepted the point of view of a few influential
people that were concerned about playback, but did not necessarily have
all of the facts that they needed to properly address their concern. WE
are the people that use sound in the field, and we are the ones that
need to be consulted. It is groups like ours that could have provided
input into something like this if we used are collective experience to
provide good data on the subject. Yet I keep on hearing opposition
without much of any backup.
I would have been impressed if the Act or anyone's published code of
ethics had properly addressed all of our intrusive habits while birding,
all of which were a problem before sound playback was ever an issue.
Then we might have a statement about how far away from a nest any birder
should be because this is a fairly well documented issue that constantly
results in breeding failure. This would preclude looking for rare birds
since most birders wouldn't have a clue where the nest would be.
Playback in the far north can induce a bird to leave its nest at a
critical time, but approaching a nest and leaving a trail for a fox to
follow is guaranteed to have bad results. And what about all of the
nests you didn't see.
I had a number of other aspects of the issue that I wanted to address
because I wanted to head in a certain direction on this subject and do
it after I had provided everyone with an informed background. I not only
believe that playback should be used (with caution, of course), but my
experience tells me that it could be used to create less intrusive
birding than we already do and have done for years. What about
handicaps? Birders basically stalk their quarries, and we know how poor
most people are as stalkers. Why should a handicapped person, who cannot
bash the bushes and disturb four others in order to see one specific
one, not enjoy the sight of something that a nimbler, more energetic (or
younger) person can? When I say handicapped, this could refer to any
person who has a problem birding traditionally, and could easily
encompass many older folks. And by the way, who has the best lined
pockets for conservation? It ain't the thirty something couple with two
kids! Playback, used properly, could show a bird to a hundred people in
a few minutes, instead of a hundred people using hundreds of hours in a
national park tromping about trying to see it for themselves.
There are many more reasons I can see to promote playback in a better
light than we have, but it won't happen if we put the cart before the
horse. A Code of Ethics is fine if we have the information we need to
create one. But I do not believe we do, and one has only to look at the
recurring nature of this theme in this forum to see that we have not
dealt with it adequately. It can't be explained in a few three sentence
postings.
Here is a fact about the playback issue that is not easily proven, but
common sense (and my experiences) suggests that it is, in all
likelihood, a fact. Those of us who have engaged in this discussion over
the years have found that many people against playback use (certainly
not all) have been extremely vocal in their position without offering
much in the way of evidence for their position. I wish I had a buck for
every comeback I have heard that sounded like, " I head from a friend's
friend that he saw a bird flush when playback was used". If one looks at
human nature, what does this say? It is clear that, in some cases, we
are having had to deal with professional jealousy of a sort. Birders
that do not use sound see the huge advantage that birders using it have.
If you spent two days looking for something that I saw in 5 minutes
time, how would you feel? Why else would we single out playback so
quickly on so little data and yet still have not properly addressed all
of the intrusive effects of other types of birding on our feathered
friends? Because, as humans, we are always trying to create a level
playing field and it is always easier to bring one down to one's own
level than adapt and rise to a new one. Human nature!
There are few things more frustrating in the world than educated people
resisting education.
Scott Connop
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|