This is my intended last informational posting on the subject of
playback. I have saved the most controversial for last. I have tried to
build a base of information so that I can now come forward and present
my final premise. Concern for my environment is paramount. I not only
believe that playback should be allowed under sensible guidelines, but
that it can be a preferably less intrusive method of birding than many
used commonly by birders now and in the past.
After my last post, you may wonder, why bother the bird at all? I delved
into detail on the scientific use of playback and its rationales, but
the recreational aspect is the one that provokes the most antipathy. It
is difficult to explain to a non birder the habits and demographics of
birding. Suffice to say that there are now a large number of people
birding on various levels locally and internationally. They spend a lot
a money and a lot of time on their hobby. Many become conservation
oriented as a result of their participation and exposure to others in
the field. Some remain what we call listers, folks not unlike the
materialistic object collectors of the world who like cars, stamps,
guns, comic books or anything humans have created. They get competitive
about it, too. Love them or leave them, they are a significant part of
the rallying forces for bird conservation today. We need to educate
them, also, so that they can go about their hobby as responsibly as they
can.
How do birders bird? For some of you, this is obvious. But have you
thought about its effects on birds? This where I have some problem about
the anti-playback lobby. They sound assured about its detrimental value
yet they do not seem to put it into perspective with all the rest of our
habits of interacting with birds. I found John Hartog's comments
interesting (sorry I misspelled your surname last time, John).
>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.
>
Birders cannot confine their birding to this. They go where the birds
are. We do not have path access to all of the birds they want to see.
And the birds don't stay there. They move, constantly. A birder needs to
get close enough to identify what he/she sees.
So what do they do? They walk towards their objects until they are able
to visually locate them and use their optics, usually binoculars. This
could be any distance, but one thing is sure, they are walking through
natural habitat to get to them. There could be nests, hidden birds, rare
plants, insects, mammals and Lord knows what between them and their
intended bird. If one could just stand in one place and have the bird
come to them, all of this could be avoided. A pipe dream? Not if one
used playback to draw the bird. What I am trying to point out is that
the level of intrusion is far greater through conventional birding than
it would be using playback.
Reality suggests that we are not going to readily change birding habits
in people that have been birding for a long time. Nor would it serve any
purpose to forbid them from birding in parks. You would get the same
reaction as you do from hunters allowed to hunt in park areas. These
parks are for everyone, not just preservationists, and we need their
support in order to justify more parks and sensible rules. I would
rather have a person birding through a listing desire than not birding
at all. Time has proven that many of these folks, over time, become
ardent supporters of conservation. Their motivation is of no consequence
to me. Their support in protecting, say for example, the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge, is of importance to me.
Tour leading - my last target. I am tour leader. I have been doing it
for 25 years. Once again, I was struck by John Hartog's interpretation.
>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. (my comment)
>
>
>
>" That's what zoos are for ". (John's)
>
>
>
Birders are allowed (ABA rules, e.g.) to count only wild and
unrestrained birds. The entire hobby is built around this concept. And
there are a lot of birders now. However, they do not tend to spread
themselves around. Instead, they go straight to where the birds are. The
most conspicuous gatherings of birders occur at migration hot spots and
rarity locations.
One of the joys of birding is that they often do come to us. Birds that
breed above the Arctic Circle pass by in migration. What a joy! A person
doesn't have to spend a fortune to see them. So places like High Island,
Cape May, and Pt. Pelee get inundated with birders every year. Pt. Pelee
has strict rules about staying on the paths, but the birds don't know
that. I can't think of a bird that is in more need of privacy than one
that just flew 700 miles overnight. But if we banned these folks from
these places, we would have a revolt that makes our discussion of
playback look totally innocuous. Tour leaders in these places have the
expertise to show these birds to the throng without the throng
descending on the bird. Playback could allow them to show one bird for a
few moments without the horde standing in the vegetation all day waiting
to get a peek. What would be more intrusive?
In one of my posts, I referred to handicapped people as being potential
beneficiaries of playback. Age frequently plays a role in their
limitations, and they are common users of birding tours for their
birding appreciation. A tour leader using playback can show birds to
these people in a responsible manner and they get to enjoy something
that might have been easier for them to do on their own in their
physical prime. The appreciation these folks show for this is
incalculable, and it is one of the primary satisfactions in what I do.
Once again, I could go on and on. The value of playback to some of us
has become second nature, and its impact (or lack of) has become just as
obvious over the years. I did not write these posts with a religious
fervour to convert anyone. I just wanted to present an outlook from
someone familiar with playback and its uses.
Are there times when it should not be used? Absolutely! Do not use it
when you are dealing with an obviously vulnerable subject unless you
feel it would be trampled by the careless types that are bent on seeing
it, anyways. Do not use it where posted not to. We don't need any more
bad press. And above all, do not use it when it isn't necessary. If a
bird happens to show itself in the course of its normal behaviour,
savour it and leave it alone. Playback should be use to lessen the
impact on a bird and its environment, not increase it.
Thank you to everyone who indulged me on this topic. I hope you found it
enlightening. It was never intended to incite rioting. It was intended
to give substance to the outlook of people who use playback and do not
like to see it trashed without proper discussion or possession of facts.
Scott Connop
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|