Birdsong Apps Disrespectful to Birds (24 Viewers)

[pppppvvvv]

It's a bit like the Iolo Williams speech again lol.. what are you going to say to your Grandchildren when they want to know why there are no Nightjars on the Heath, or Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers in the Forest, but you can hear Birders everywhere searching for them, with machines playing their call.

Forget the Song Thrush and the Tawny Owl and the Woodpigeons just for now, and concentrate on the ones struggling or on the brink.. it gets much simpler then.

You don't have to agree with Annabeth above, who has been busy typing whilst I was, but you should be able to at least see her perspective and respect it. It doesn't need picking apart, changing slightly to something ludicrous, then being ridiculed, as seems to be the trend in here.

There is no point me discussing my opinions, or trying to defend my opinions in a sensible way, because people here are just changing my opinions to something completely ridiculous, then arguing with that! It's all nonsense to be honest. Sorry, but that's how I see it, a complete waste of energy.

 

[A2GG]

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?

The birds will get to decide eventually. When there's been enough research available on the direct impact to birds from photography and bird watching tactics then we'll have our answer. If it is or isn't negatively impacting the birds they will tell us in the research.

It's true there needs to be more research, but then I fear how they would do it and what type of stress the research subjects would have to endure.

 

[A2GG]

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.

I guess so, but why manipulate either way ? to get that tick or that photo? We don't yet know the effects fully of this practice and, I'm afraid, maybe we are playing with fire ? I'd rather leave the manipulation via recordings, etc. to biologists who need to study bird behavior. But, to get a photo or to tick off a bird on a list, to me, this type of manipulation seems unethical. Just a thought...not saying I have the answer here.

When I first read about pishing it didn't take me long to think this is something that's not for me. I remember the author in the book or essay I read cautioning to be 'ethical' about pishing, to use it sparingly. My first thoughts were, as others have pointed out, where to draw the line and that it's sort of arbitrary. So, then I decided to not engage in the practice at all.

 

[A2GG]

There seems to be a pious 'holier than thou' mentality creeping into these debates, which is divisive.

I don't think that's quite fair. I've tried to come from my own personal perspective. It's all just my opinion and I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I hope I didn't come off that way.

This is all obviously a very personal decision whether to practice pishing or tape luring.

I'm sure I've said enough on this subject and some feel probably way too much LOL. So, I'll try to refrain from repeating my views on it since I've been a bit repetitive here on this thread.

 

[fugl]

. . .concentrate on the ones struggling or on the brink.. it gets much simpler then.

Not really. If you wish to argue that species on the brink require extra protection from human "disturbance" in general, few here would disagree. But the topic of this thread is the alleged detrimental effects of tape luring per se, and on these--as has been abundantly demonstrated elsewhere in the thread--there is no solid evidence one way or the other.

An analogous case is the winter feeding of backyard birds which some give reasons for thinking does more harm than good but without being able to offer convincing evidence in support. (Down, Alf, down!. Just a harmless example ). Should backyard feeding also be banned your view?

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Haven't you been reading the articles that have been referred to in this thread?

....No, there's no concrete studies/research done yet

The latter explains why the former is meaningless.

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.

You already accept that there is no concrete evidence, yet you're then prejudging it by calling it "harm". But then you're happy to "take the risk" of walking through breeding habitat and flushing birds from their business?

The difference is one has intent to bring the bird out and the other does not.

One brings the bird to you, the other pushes the bird from you (flushing). Both are 'disturbing'.

This is all obviously a very personal decision whether to practice pishing or tape luring.

It isn't though, because some people are trying to 'ban' other people from doing something. It should be a personal decision until the evidence is there, but others seem to want to make that decision for everyone else based on their own whim, rather than any kind of hard evidence.

I bet if the reserve owners were making money out of apps like they are out of birdfood, they might be more tolerant about the perceived negatives. Eh, Fugl?!

 

[A2GG]

The latter explains why the former is meaningless.



You already accept that there is no concrete evidence, yet you're then prejudging it by calling it "harm". But then you're happy to "take the risk" of walking through breeding habitat and flushing birds from their business?



One brings the bird to you, the other pushes the bird from you (flushing). Both are 'disturbing'.



It isn't though, because some people are trying to 'ban' other people from doing something. It should be a personal decision until the evidence is there, but others seem to want to make that decision for everyone else based on their own whim, rather than any kind of hard evidence.

I bet if the reserve owners were making money out of apps like they are out of birdfood, they might be more tolerant about the perceived negatives. Eh, Fugl?!

I think that corroborated observation by professionals should not be automatically dismissed. This is how studies are born. I guess we will find out one way or another in the future...hopefully.

In my previous posts I've conveyed that it may cause harm and I'd rather err on the side of caution; that I'd rather not take the risk.

again, unintentional flushing and intentional tape luring...I make a distinction, you don't. Let's leave that one alone.

"One brings the bird to you, the other pushes the bird from you (flushing). Both are 'disturbing'." Interesting, you admit that luring is disturbing to the bird? you didn't before.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't want to get into long back and forth battles with any one person on the thread. That gets tiring real quick. Plus, it's just going in circles anyway.

 

[fugl]

I bet if the reserve owners were making money out of apps like they are out of birdfood, they might be more tolerant about the perceived negatives. Eh, Fugl?!

Neatly fielded--well done.

 

[A2GG]

I just came across this essay. It does reference at least some science and some research. I know a few of you won't think much of it, but I think the author expresses himself well and does provide a little something to back up his opinions:

http://xenogere.com/the-birding-community-hates-birds-pishing-and-tape-luring-part-1/

It begs the question: If tape luring used in scientific research is 'highly effective' then what impact is it having in the hands of many bird watchers.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Not really. If you wish to argue that species on the brink require extra protection from human "disturbance" in general, few here would disagree. But the topic of this thread is the alleged detrimental effects of tape luring per se, and on these--as has been abundantly demonstrated elsewhere in the thread--there is no solid evidence one way or the other.

An analogous case is the winter feeding of backyard birds which some give reasons for thinking does more harm than good but without being able to offer convincing evidence in support. (Down, Alf, down!. Just a harmless example ). Should backyard feeding also be banned your view?

Yes, really. The topic of this thread is tape luring for Nightjars, a red list species in UK, with just a couple of thousand pairs.

You want to talk about feeding garden birds?! Same old rubbish, turn people's words into something completely unrelated, then argue about that. Well, sorry no-one is biting.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Yes, really. The topic of this thread is tape luring for Nightjars, a red list species in UK.

But not a Schedule 1 species. There's no law against it.

Just like there's no law against whistling a duet with a Song Thrush (another Red-listed species) while drinking a pimms in the back yard of a summer evening...

 

[pppppvvvv]

But not a Schedule 1 species. There's no law against it.

Just like there's no law against whistling a duet with a Song Thrush (another Red-listed species) while drinking a pimms in the back yard of a summer evening...

There it goes again.. take a discussion about a species with a population of a couple of thousand pairs, and replace it with a species with over 1 million pairs, then hammer home your point.. Like I said, no one's biting!

 

[chris butterworth]

But not a Schedule 1 species. There's no law against it.

Just like there's no law against whistling a duet with a Song Thrush (another Red-listed species) while drinking a pimms in the back yard of a summer evening...

There is no law to prevent you from standing in your front room naked, in full view of all passers by either. If you lived near a school, would you? Remember Alf "THERE IS NO LAW FORBIDDING YOU". An extremely weak argument based on an attempt to justify a position that, in the back of your mind, you find untenable.

Chris

 

[fugl]

Yes, really. The topic of this thread is tape luring for Nightjars, a red list species in UK, with just a couple of thousand pairs.

No, you're wrong, it's about birds in general as per both the thread title and the topic sentence. And as per your earlier posts as well, where you claim tape luring is wrong (or at least strongly to be deplored) whether the target be rare or common. Nightjars are just where you've been driven to by the weakness of your general position.

You want to talk about feeding garden birds?! Same old rubbish, turn people's words into something completely unrelated, then argue about that. Well, sorry no-one is biting.

No I don't. I was just providing an example of another "interference with nature" type activity that some people want to ban on weak evidence.

 

[fugl]

I just came across this essay. It does reference at least some science and some research. I know a few of you won't think much of it, but I think the author expresses himself well and does provide a little something to back up his opinions:

http://xenogere.com/the-birding-community-hates-birds-pishing-and-tape-luring-part-1/

An interesting article (in spite of the silly title). Thanks for the link.

 

[pppppvvvv]

No, you're wrong, it's about birds in general as per both the thread title and the topic sentence. And as per your earlier posts as well, where you claim tape luring is wrong (or at least strongly to be deplored) whether the target be rare or common. Nightjars are just where you've been driven to by the weakness of your general position.
.

Yeah, our media tends to do that a lot.. Have a shocking, controversial, attention seeking headline. But if you read the text it is all about Nightjars, at Brownsea island.

Like you said earlier, very few people would disagree that such sensitive species need extra protection.

As for "common" species.. in the UK or even Europe, I can't think of any examples of common species that are regularly pursued by tape lure.

Hope this helps.

 

[lewis20126]

As for "common" species.. in the UK or even Europe, I can't think of any examples of common species that are regularly pursued by tape lure.
.

Ringers use tape lures a lot. For example big autumn ringed totals of Grasshoper warbler in reedbeds are gained through tape lures on a loop.

cheers, alan

 

[fugl]

As for "common" species.. in the UK or even Europe, I can't think of any examples of common species that are regularly pursued by tape lure..

Come, come, even by beginners and photographers? Not to mention owlers and patch workers. My guess is that you don't get out much.

 

[fugl]

Yeah, our media tends to do that a lot.. Have a shocking, controversial, attention seeking headline. But if you read the text it is all about Nightjars, at Brownsea island.

Yes, but the thread is about birds in general as I said & you queried

Hope this clarifies things for you.

 

[pppppvvvv]

Yeah, it does actually.. It helps me realise why we are both bickering over something, when we both agree it's bad to disturb sensitive species. Couldn't get my head round that but it all makes more sense now.

I'm not going to respond to jibes about me not getting out much! I have behaved equally poor in this thread, so if I dish it out, I should at least be able to take it in return lol