naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

FW: Re: use of birdsong playback

Subject: FW: Re: use of birdsong playback
From: "Chris Harrison" lamprophis1963
Date: Sun Jan 5, 2014 7:05 pm ((PST))
In answer to Eric's statement, audio playback is banned in most parks and
refuges as it should be.



I am not only interested in recording natural sounds, I am also a
birdwatcher and have been birding for 30+ years.  This issue comes up
frequently in birding circles, as you can imagine.   I think we as consumer=
s
of these wildlife resources, even if only through watching, recording, or
photographing, should be the most staunch defenders of protecting the
resources we claim to love.   No one ever really needs a particular photo,
recording, or bird on their lifelist.  Never.  You may have been hired to
get a recording or a photo by agency, but you don't really NEED to have it.
This means there should NEVER be a reason to play a bird's call back to it.
I hear birders talking about "confirming the species identity" etc. as
justification, but you didn't need to know what it was enough to justify
disturbing it.  (I'm aware that simply being in the animals habitat is
disruptive, but we should aim to minimize our disruptive footprint as best
we can.



Birders will happily play owl calls to bring in birds so they can see them
or impersonate or play a bird's call to get it close.  Doing so is
disruptive to the wildlife.  If it wasn't, it wouldn't work!



I am guilty in that I have "psssshed" to bring a bird out into view
(mimicking the alarm call of other birds) and whistled a call back to a bir=
d
to get it to come into view.  But it is wrong to do so and I don't do it as
a rule.



BTW - the same playback thing works with frogs and I have seen a lot of fro=
g
recordings that have "responded to playback of call" in their descriptions.



Think about this - which has greatest potential to harm the species you are
interested in: playing back a call to it or throwing a beer can out of your
car at the site?   I say the former is more disruptive even though the idea
of littering raises more people's hackles and is perceived as "worse".



Lastly, it doesn't make it OK to do it just because you think you are the
only one that would do it in that area.  If it would be wrong for 100 peopl=
e
to do it, it is wrong for you to do it.  By that logic, throwing one beer
can out the window is ok because very few people come here so I'm probably
the only person who would litter.



clump, clump, clump (stepping off soapbox)



Chris






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU