The use of playback of recorded birdsong is a controversial matter. Back in
1968, in my ignorance, I caused considerable distress, if nothing worse, to
a lyrebird, by persisting with playback while trying to record his threat
calls. When I realised the distress I was causing him, I packed up and
left. Since then I have avoided using playback.
This posting however, is to alert b-aus subscribers to a legal situation in
Queensland.
In the current issue of "Wildlife Queensland", the quarterly newsletter of
the Wildlife Preservation Society, there is a note concerning the
requirements of the "Animal Care and Protection Act", and when it is
necessary to be registered, obtain Animal Ethics Committee approval, and
report observed animals to the Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries.
The note suggests that this is not necessary for photographic, digital and
sound recording, for example, but that it is necessary for activities such
as (and I quote):
Spotlighting using a light source more powerful than a domestic torch;
Using playback to imitate animals
Trapping and handling animals
Hair tubes
Identifying animals by marking or placing tags, bands, etc on or in
animals
Disruption of habitat
For further information one can contact the Animal Welfare Unit, Department
of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Call Centre 13 25 23.
I would hope that the Ethics Committee would only approve play-back of bird
song, if it could be shown that the use could reasonably be expected to aid
in the conservation of the species. But I don't know that this is the case.
Syd
(And no, I don't know what "Hair tubes" are.)
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
