Pardon all my (snip)s.
(snip)
> 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=85.
I can't speak for Doug =96 but I don't take his subtle suggestion as a
directive to stop the discussion, and I think his suggestion for a
code was reasonable.
(snip)
>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.
Thanks Scott, your posts have been useful to me. It has become clear
to me now, how fundamentally embedded playback has become and how
important it is considered to modern, scientific studies on birds.
With all the research using playback, one would think there would be
at least one good study showing the impact of playback =96 but alas the
issue seems to have gone unaddressed by the scientific community.
Why is this? My guess is this. Scientific research requires funding;
funding demands results; playback hastens results; if any research
proved playback detrimental, thus warranting restrictions of its use,
that could hinder the results and jeopardize funding.
(snip)
> 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
That's a good Idea.
(snip)
>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?
I would discourage recreational playback for anyone. Just as I
discourage helicopter tours. Many of our natural areas have
accessible paths, and no need for anyone to go tromping off the path.
(snip)
> 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.
That's what zoos are for.
(snip)
>A Code of Ethics is fine if we have the information we need to
> create one. But I do not believe we do=85.
I'm surprised we don't have one as yet?=20
(snip)
> 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?
None of that is clear to me. Professional Jealousy?? Singling out
playback??
Speaking for most birders and other lovers of wildlife, we are out
there just enjoying being outdoors, observing, seeing what we can see,
hearing what we can hear, breathing the fresh air. We enjoy the
natural environment it for what it provides naturally. We often use
binoculars to see things in the distance. We don't trample off path
in high-use or sensitive areas. Some of us are photographers; a few
of us record audio. A very small percentage of us use invasive
techniques such as playback, or trampling off trail, to observe our
subjects. We understand we can easily ruin what we love most, if we
fail to acknowledge our impacts as our numbers increase.
-John Hartog
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|