That's a good read.. I believe playback should be licensed, just like ringing.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Birdsong Apps Disrespectful to Birds (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Kits
- Start date
That's a good read.. I believe playback should be licensed, just like ringing.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
Maybe we should also licence pishing, whistling, and Percy Thrower?
It's a fatuous comment, but what is the actual difference between using an app and using your mouth to mimic a bird? Some birds are very easy to mimic well, just as successful as an app. Do we ban whistling too?
A second point - what is the difference between intentional disturbance using a bird call to see a bird, and intentional disturbance by walking into a bird's habitat to see them, in full knowledge that you're almost certainly going to flush them by doing so (think of Blackbirds, Woodpigeons - the latter often from nests)?
Surely we should all be staying at home in order to not 'disrespect' the birds by disturbing them in any avoidable way?
Again, I'm being fatuous, but it is a serious point. In the absence or conflict of evidence regarding how important the use of sound recording actually is in terms of disturbance and harm, I think this press release is more about the Dorset Wildlife Trust wanting people to show 'respect' to them and their opinions, rather than the birds. After all, they do not actually know that serious or meaningful disturbance or harm is being caused. They're just assuming it, and then presuming to order everyone else to bend to their personal feelings.
They also seem to be misrepresenting the legal situation (it is not illegal to use playback on Nightjars in the breeding season, as they are not a Schedule 1 species), which perhaps also suggests it's more about their feelings (what they would like the law to be, what they think is harmful) rather than the actual situation (it's not illegal, it is far from clear if it is harmful).
A2GG
Beth
This is a good article. It's true that a group of 20 birders on a tour would be quite an intrusion on birds' daily lives especially when the birders are hovering around the nesting site for extended periods of time. I take the author's point about using the recording to spot the bird and move on...and also for educational purposes. I'm still never going to use any type of luring, but as I've mentioned it may be ok for Ornithologists to engage in this for research and perhaps education. When I first got into birding I remember seeing in photos in the various magazines these groups of birders converging on the birds' territories and my first thought was...sheesh that looks so intrusive.
Well, congratulations, Alf, it's been a while since you've posted anything I can wholeheartedly agree with (with the caveat that I have no idea who or what Percy Thrower might be).
Last edited:
No, just playback.
Playback is a lot more accurate than you whistling believe it or not, plus potentially a lot louder, and therefore more likely to fool a bird into thinking he has serious competition in his territory. So a licensing scheme would be really good to restrict the use, and ensure it is used appropriately. (I'll give you that we can all do really good Tawny Owl and Cuckoo impressions!)
You can change my opinion into a more ridiculous stance like saying "we should all stay at home" if you like, it's not a very good argument though!
Actually, going the other direction, maybe birdwatching should be a licensed activity full stop. An extension of the Schedule 1 species in the UK. Sounds just as ridiculous doesn't it! Well anyone who has ever complained about behaviour at a twitch, or bad fieldcraft, or disturbance of a species, or trampling of vegetation, or hoaxing or stringing, it's certainly food for thought
A2GG
Beth
It seems there are more and more articles coming out that are revealing, based on observation by professionals, that there are detrimental effects of these recordings. Observation should not be thrown out as invaild esp. if professionals around the world are corroborating these observations. Of course official research/studies would be more helpful and insightful. I hope they begin to study this more seriously soon.
I try hard to not be distruptive or intrusive when birding. I think many respectful birders try hard to not disturb the birds. It's true we will be disruptive to a degree just by our presence within the birds' territories and nesting sites. It's the complete opposite with luring (using recordings or pishing), as there is intent and direct interference. It's that conscious decision to interrupt the bird that bothers me a bit. It's something I won't engage in personally as merely a bird watcher. I'd rather leave the debate up to the biologists and conservation professionals. I hope more non-professionals decide to refrain from this practice until it is proven by research that it is not at all harmful to birds. Right now there is , as you say, conflicting evidence, so as the Nat. Geographic article states, it's better to err on the side of caution.
A2GG
Beth
[Actually, going the other direction, maybe birdwatching should be a licensed activity full stop. An extension of the Schedule 1 species in the UK. Sounds just as ridiculous doesn't it! Well anyone who has ever complained about behaviour at a twitch, or bad fieldcraft, or disturbance of a species, or trampling of vegetation, or hoaxing or stringing, it's certainly food for thought [/QUOTE]
This is something I'd have to think about more deeply, but yes you've given me food for thought. I'm not so sure it's a bad idea.
[/QUOTE]This is something I'd have to think about more deeply, but yes you've given me food for thought. I'm not so sure it's a bad idea.
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
I'm with Alf on this one and although I don't personally use tapes anywhere in the UK or abroad, I've been plenty of places where guides have used them to attract birds, especially in dense forest. Only once or twice have I felt uncomfortable that their use has been excessive and stressing the bird. Example was an occassion in Poland some years back where the guide had a Green Woodpecker flying around people's heads like it was a circus show. Another factor is that in many places in the UK, there are many birders so if tape luring becomes acceptable and if everyone did it, perhaps the birds would react unfavourably. In the US however, my experiance is not to experiance many if any, birders and any such vocal interaction would unlikely impact a single bird too much.
I also agree with the posters from the US that I too find it almost natural to sympathetically interact with wildlife but have never felt it damaging in any way. Quail might be an example where my mimicing is woeful but with practice, has worked and got birds to check me out for that split second before melting away into the vegetation again. Here's an image I snapped last week where mother and fawn were totally unaware of my pressence until I "ticked" and both turned their heads to give me a look before continuing on their way. Stressed? I really don't think so and no, I can't prove it.
Attachments
jurek
Well-known member
Hi,
Practically, birders should treat playback as any other disturbance, eg. flushing the bird. Most of us understand that flushing a bird once makes no real harm. But doing it many times is harmful, and should not be done in often visited reserves.
Many birds are very sound-oriented and set territories only by exchanging songs. Often the territory ownership is settled without rivals seeing each other.
Ornithologists interested in territories, bioaccoustics etc. use playback as a proxy of rival. The same as studying predator avoidance put a stuffed hawk. So yes, it is common knowledge that birds are disturbed by playback.
Of course, playback - once in one spot - is often used in eg. counting shy birds like owls or rails.
Practically, birders should treat playback as any other disturbance, eg. flushing the bird. Most of us understand that flushing a bird once makes no real harm. But doing it many times is harmful, and should not be done in often visited reserves.
Many birds are very sound-oriented and set territories only by exchanging songs. Often the territory ownership is settled without rivals seeing each other.
Ornithologists interested in territories, bioaccoustics etc. use playback as a proxy of rival. The same as studying predator avoidance put a stuffed hawk. So yes, it is common knowledge that birds are disturbed by playback.
Of course, playback - once in one spot - is often used in eg. counting shy birds like owls or rails.
Robin Edwards
Well-known member
Actually, going the other direction, maybe birdwatching should be a licensed activity full stop. An extension of the Schedule 1 species in the UK. Sounds just as ridiculous doesn't it! Well anyone who has ever complained about behaviour at a twitch, or bad fieldcraft, or disturbance of a species, or trampling of vegetation, or hoaxing or stringing, it's certainly food for thought
Well if a birder or anyone else is disturbing schedule 1 species or breeding birds, they are breaking the law and I doubt licensing would acheive very much. Also, how would those that break the rules be prevented from birding? There are also plenty of people who disturb wildlife who aren't birders and many birds struggle to attract a partner and breed given the excessive noise pollution we all create.
It is also plainly evident from this forum that "bad behaviour" or "good behaviour" is somewhat subjective and you can bet that there will be someone out there who will want to ban all sorts of people for countless different reasons they personally feel are justified. Just read the threads that demonstrate intellerance between people with different interests sharing public spaces such as bird-hides.
Having said this, I would expect groups of birders themselves to police the reckless actoins of the minority, including playing of tapes.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
What observations? Where? Woudln't it be a bit rash to ban something based on something as flimsy as hearsay and anecdote? Especially when we're talking about a subtle and arbitrary cut off point between acceptable and unacceptable?
For instance, I have 'observed' that when I walk along a hedgerow I flush half a dozen woodpigeons from their nests. This is totally avoidable - I know that walking in the English countryside in summer will lead to this. It is clearly more serious than playback, because I am definitely flushing a bird from its nest - no question it's harmful. So, should I stay at home all summer long, to prevent this avoidable harm to the birds' breeding activities? Or do we just accept that in the gran scheme of things birds have evolved to deal with lots of disturbance all the time, and even if it is measureable in cortisone levels then at the end of the day it will not be detectable in their survival rates or breeding productivity?
Maybe we should just chillax and concentrate on the serious problems that have a conservation impact and really do cause harm to populations.
There seems to be a pious 'holier than thou' mentality creeping into these debates, which is divisive.
Show me playback kills birds one way or another (stressed adults, eggs or chicks), and I'll support a ban. Otherwise, the Dorset Wildlife Trust nort anyone else has a right to finger-wag at anyone going about based on their own uncorroborated preconceptions. Especially when they wrongly imply such people are law-breakers!
You could always try harder. Stay at home, for instance. That way you're allowing the birds to live out their lives without any potentially harmful intrusion. Why stop at banning playback? We could ban walking through breeding habitat too. And whistling.
Where is the difference between walking into a territory with the intention of seeing/hearing a bird and causing disturbance by searching for it and flushing it from its routine, and standing in a territory using playback to entice the bird to come to you and breaking its routine? I see no difference at all. Both have the same goal (seeing the bird) and the same outcome (the bird does something it wouldn't otherwise do if you were not there). The solution to both is simple, don't go there.
I see it pretty obvious really..
Tape at Nightjars' site: Wrong.
Tape at Green Woodpecker Site so bird is flying round your head: Wrong.
Tape at my local Lesser Spotted Woodpecker site, (where the chap got out the car blasted the tape, didn't see the bird, rushed off to work saying he'd try again tomorrow): Wrong.
Going "tick" for 2 Deer to turn their heads: OK!
I only see things in UK / Europe perspective. No idea how that would translate in US or South America. If you're the only birder for miles, then I'd have thought you could go in a bit harder, subject to your license of course
Tape at Nightjars' site: Wrong.
Tape at Green Woodpecker Site so bird is flying round your head: Wrong.
Tape at my local Lesser Spotted Woodpecker site, (where the chap got out the car blasted the tape, didn't see the bird, rushed off to work saying he'd try again tomorrow): Wrong.
Going "tick" for 2 Deer to turn their heads: OK!
I only see things in UK / Europe perspective. No idea how that would translate in US or South America. If you're the only birder for miles, then I'd have thought you could go in a bit harder, subject to your license of course
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
Yes, it's 'disturbance', the question is: does it matter? If, as you say, rival birds 'disturb' each other all the time, a bit more rivalry from an mp3 player may well be totally harmless, as it is something the birds do all day long anyway and are full adapted to cope with it.
A bird having a song played at it is not being subjected to anything 'unnatural'. Being sung at and singing back is the normal state of affairs for birds.
It is also well-known that paired birds and those with eggs or young sing much less than unpaired birds. They do not need to sing, as they have already got their territory, their female, and their fertilised eggs. So contrary to 'interfering with breeding' (the common charge), playback is arguably much less intrusive to breeding birds than non-breeding birds. Therefore, the potential harm is even less meaningful.
Before anyone wnats to ban something like playback, they need to define what they mean by 'harm' in the context of other activities, and then justify why any such harm is unacceptable in the context of conservation or welfare. Otherwise, it's just 'he says, she says'.
Last edited:
See my post #32 earlier. If it didn't die, it came very close.
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
That's just your opinion, which I'd challenge to some degree. Most speakers play back at a frequency range well below that you can produce with your own voice. And louder sound is more distorted still (birds use distortion and deterioration as a cue to distance).
If we use some simple examples, a person could mimic a cuckoo, tawny owl, song thrush or quail just as well as playback. So should people be banned from mimicking those species, as well as using playback? If the outcome is the same (bird attracted) then why on earth not? Except for the fact that it sounds ridiculous to send someone to a Magistate's court for whistling at a thrush...
And why would that necessarily be damaging, bearing in mind that the bird will 'win' on every single occasion? Perhaps it would even make him more attractive?! In any case, territory ownership is usually based upon prior occupation, I don't think any birds can actually lose a territory through a song duel.
You don't get away that easily! WHY isn't it a good argument? Because you have an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to disturbance, and what is acceptable and unacceptable to you is a matter of personal taste rather than objective fact? Or something like that...?
AlfArbuthnot
Well-known member
Unless that's a systematic and predictable outcome, I'm sure we could dig out an example of a bird coming to playback and avoiding a hawk by doing so. It's a random chance event, not a reason for banning an activity. You could re-live that event a thousand times the hawk would probably not appear.
Ah well, we could argue all day long.
One other example I have is of the Finnish wildlife tours, this is going back 10 years now. We weren't having any joy finding a Red-Flanked Bluetail, and it was suggested the tour leader use tape to lure one out. The response from the tour leader was that it was forbidden to play tapes to lure Bluetails due to their extremely tenuous grip in Finland at the time. Any tour leader caught using tape would have his Finnature license revoked, or words to that effect. Effectively banned anyway.
It's all common sense really. Sadly, you can't always rely on common sense within the human race.
One other example I have is of the Finnish wildlife tours, this is going back 10 years now. We weren't having any joy finding a Red-Flanked Bluetail, and it was suggested the tour leader use tape to lure one out. The response from the tour leader was that it was forbidden to play tapes to lure Bluetails due to their extremely tenuous grip in Finland at the time. Any tour leader caught using tape would have his Finnature license revoked, or words to that effect. Effectively banned anyway.
It's all common sense really. Sadly, you can't always rely on common sense within the human race.
OsageArcher
Well-known member
This reminds me of a "debate" in a photo forum, where some people wanted to ban the use of a flash when photographing wildlife on the grounds that it disturbed them. As if the animals had never seen lightning flashes, never heard loud noises...and of course there are those who are always more than ready to ban others some sort of behavior which they find unacceptable. Who gets to decide what the "rules" are? What exceptions will be made (there are always exceptions for the "privileged" class based on some specious reasoning or other)? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A2GG
Beth
Haven't you been reading the articles that have been referred to in this thread? There are some preserves that are beginning to ban the practice apparently (based on observations). These rules to ban have been made by conservation management at said parks. They are doing it to keep the birds best interest in mind which is their job. No, there's no concrete studies/research done yet and hopefully there will be. I'm simpy stating my own feelings on this subject, presenting my personal feelings on it and I prefer to err on the side of caution since the issue is not yet concrete. I'd rather not take the risk that it could do harm since there now numerous obervations that it does with the mobile recordings on phones. etc.
Last edited:
A2GG
Beth
The difference is one has intent to bring the bird out and the other does not. When I go birding I never have the intent to lure. I try to be a silent observer. You're correct that there will be disturbance and unintentional flushing...this comes with birding. As you could guess, I do not intentionally flush in order to bring the bird out. In the beginning when I first started I wasn't stealth enough and over time learned to change my behavior because I always have the birds in mind. With recording it adds another dimension or layer to bird watching and I don't want to add this to the way I bird, as I feel it's unethical to do so. It is impossible, as you point out, to be a completely silent observer, so I take your point there. But, I've been pointing out in my posts that the difference is intent. If I had the specific intention of bringing the birds to me, as opposed to waiting for the bird to just happen to pass on its way to its next stop, I wouldn't feel comfortable since now I'm intentionally interrupting/distracting the bird from whatever it was doing; adding an unnecesary and possibly harmful tactic IMO. Since there is the possibility (even if very small) that drawing the bird out to the open could have consequences then I'd rather not take the risk; consequences pointed out earlier in the article and posts in this thread such as , vulnerable to predation, disruption of nesting duties , male birds 'losing' the territorial battle with the 'other bird' (recording), etc.
I get your point about staying home and leaving the birds alone. I've actually thought about that before...LOL. But, I think you exaggerate my points. Trying to be respectful of the birds by trying to not disturb them and intentionally disturbing them are different (to me). I know you make no distinction, so we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Both Fugl and yourself need to have concrete evidence in the form of solid scientific research that the birds are being harmed before you will stop the practice. That's ok and your right to do so. Me ... I'd rather err on the side of caution and that's where our philosophies part ways.
I do hope that they can get some research done on it. I'm curious myself to see the results.
