[TN-Bird] Re: OT: Ethics, Legality, etc.?

  • From: "Mcdonald, Kenneth" <kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx>
  • To: Rick Phillips <sunfish0501@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:55:40 -0500

Good questions, Rick.

First it's important to note nobody is proposing drawing new lines in the
legal sand; just being more careful about how we experience birds.

My own take on playbacks is "need."I can think of many circumstances in
which playbacks, carefully planned and executed, can optimize detectability
while minimizing or mitigating risk to the birds. Some of the papers I put
out earlier examine conservation actions where playbacks were used to
positively influence bird behavior - for example, by drawing in species of
concern into areas of suitable habitat that are more protected than other
nearby areas. I think the real question isn't whether playbacks and pishing
have legitimate uses. I think the issue is do we want to use these methods
to enhance a recreational experience?

In the end it's a judgement call - does the risks incurred by pishing and
playbacks outweigh the benefits to the bird? Where that estimation on the
part of the observer falls really dictates the appropriateness of using
either, to me. As I mentioned before, some agencies have decided any use of
pishing or playbacks presents a greater risk than a benefit. For example,
if millions visitors to Cades Cove used playbacks each year to enhance
their ability to observe and photograph birds there is no doubt there would
be a measurable impact on bird populations in that area of the park. I
think that's why the NPS chose to prohibit either of these. Outside of
federal lands the birding community is the front line in determining
whether similar risk is present, acceptable, and something worth addressing
through education and advocacy.

Ken


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Rick Phillips <sunfish0501@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> One thought that keeps popping up in my mind. I'm a former wildlife
> biologist with the US Forest Service Southern Research Station and a long
> time birder and naturalist. I have participated in many a survey of
> breeding birds and have done a fair amount of bird photography during the
> breeding season. I have used playbacks to detect the presence of
> individuals and occasionally for photography. My question is this...if we
> are going to frown upon activities (especially during the breeding season)
> that alter the "normal" activities of breeding birds, then isn't just
> walking through an area where birds are breeding likely to induce behaviors
> that might signal predators or cause birds to expend additional energy that
> could possibly lead to increased mortality? I was walking along the edge of
> a woodland stream yesterday and for a long time I had a pair of Louisiana
> Waterthrushes following and chipping, most likely because they had young in
> the area. Maybe a nest, maybe just fledglings, but something that was
> "disturbing" them. Isn't that additional energy expenditure
> detrimental...or is this kind of energy different from that expended
> responding to a song playback.?Are we going to limit any interactions with
> birds (especially during the breeding season) that "disturb" them? Like,
> maybe we should just stay away from birds during the breeding season
> altogether. Aren't most birds (unless rare), normally hearing other males
> singing and interacting with other individuals during the breeding season
> as a part of their natural behaviors? I'm not saying I condone playbacks to
> attract or detect the presence of individuals, but what's ok as far as
> disturbance and what isn't? Which species? How much? Just things that run
> through my head every time I see one of these discussions regarding
> "disturbance" come up.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Mcdonald, Kenneth <
> kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On a short search of literature, these have cropped up at various times
>> in discussions regarding the use of playbacks and pishing. As you will see
>> manipulating bird behavior with playbacks has shown some promise, but the
>> take-away lesson is that birds *can* be influenced by playbacks. Unless
>> pishing or playbacks are utilized with purpose and design the effect could
>> lead to an inadvertent, adverse outcome for the bird.
>>
>> Betts, Matthew G., et al. "Social information trumps vegetation structure
>> in breeding-site selection by a migrant songbird." *Proceedings of the
>> Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 275.1648 (2008): 2257-2263.
>>
>> Ahlering, Marissa A., et al. "Research needs and recommendations for the
>> use of conspecific-attraction methods in the conservation of migratory
>> songbirds."*The Condor* 112.2 (2010): 252-264.
>>
>> Virzi, Thomas, et al. "Effectiveness of artificial song playback on
>> influencing the settlement decisions of an endangered resident grassland
>> passerine." *The Condor* 114.4 (2012): 846-855.
>>
>> Møller, Anders Pape. "Interspecific response to playback of bird song."
>> *Ethology* 90.4 (1992): 315-320.
>>
>> Forsman, Jukka T., and Mikko Mönkkönen. "Responses by breeding birds to
>> heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation
>> risk."*Animal Behaviour* 62.6 (2001): 1067-1073.
>>
>> Lima, Steven L. "Predators and the breeding bird: behavioral and
>> reproductive flexibility under the risk of predation." *Biological
>> Reviews* 84.3 (2009): 485-513.
>>
>> Martin, Paul R., et al. "Response of American redstarts (suborder
>> Passeri) and least flycatchers (suborder Tyranni) to heterospecific
>> playback: the role of song in aggressive interactions and interference
>> competition." *Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology* 39.4 (1996): 227-235.
>>
>> Langham, Gary M., Thomas A. Contreras, and Kathryn E. Sieving. "Why
>> pishing works: Titmouse (Paridae) scolds elicit a generalized response in
>> bird communities." *Ecoscience* 13.4 (2006): 485-496.
>>
>> Huang, Ping, Kathryn E. Sieving, and Colette M. St Mary. "Heterospecific
>> information about predation risk influences exploratory behavior." 
>> *Behavioral
>> Ecology* 23.3 (2012): 463-472.
>>
>> Nocera, Joseph J., and Laurene M. Ratcliffe. "Migrant and resident birds
>> adjust antipredator behavior in response to social information accuracy." 
>> *Behavioral
>> Ecology* 21.1 (2010): 121-128.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bill Pulliam <littlezz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> My thoughts on the conservation value would be...
>>>
>>> If documenting the presence of the bird in an area is valuable, then
>>> breeding-season playback could be warranted.  But, it would seem, as soon
>>> as the bird responds and is documented, the playback should stop.  No
>>> drawing it in to get a visual (unless visual ID is necessary) or a better
>>> photo.
>>>
>>> I wonder about wintertime pishing?  Has that been studied?  One could
>>> argue that CBC data are valuable for conservation, and pishing/screech-owl
>>> imitations are very widely used.  How much harm might there be in a
>>> once-a-year exposure to one intense bout of pishing and tooting, I wonder?
>>>  Might be hard to study, you might set up paired plots, pish one regularly
>>> the other never, then do point counts without pishing regularly during the
>>> study period.  Would need a lot of replicates, but could be a good student
>>> research project...?
>>>
>>> And along the ideas of conservation value, filtered higher-quality eBird
>>> data (complete checklists covering small areas) are also being used for
>>> large-scale "big picture" monitoring of birds at regional and continental
>>> scales.  So if one ^could^ argue that if consistent use of pishing as part
>>> of collecting these data helps elucidate the spatial and temporal patterns
>>> of distributions of species that might be harder to detect without it,
>>> maybe it can be justified...?
>>>
>>> I don't pish in the nesting season, but I do in the winter.  I am
>>> judicious around my house, because the birds could be exposed daily, and it
>>> seems that they also become resistant to the pishing as the winter wears on
>>> if I do it too often -- "Oh, just the big hairy one again."  Which, one
>>> might wonder, could impair the legitimate mobbing behaviors in response to
>>> a real threat?
>>>
>>> Lots of question marks.  An interesting topic.
>>>
>>> Bill Pulliam
>>> Hohenwald TN
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 8:46 AM, Mcdonald, Kenneth wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>>
>>>> My name is Ken McDonald and I am a biologist with the USFWS in
>>>> Cookeville. Usually, I'm the point of contact for calls regarding the
>>>> Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
>>>>
>>>> While this shouldn't be construed as legal advice, I point out The
>>>> Migratory Bird Treaty Act  of 1918  states it is "unlawful at any time, by
>>>> any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill . . . [or
>>>> transport] any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird"
>>>>  (16 U.S.C. 703). The only exception to this is when regulations authorize
>>>> these activities for the purpose of conserving migratory bird trust
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> Some agencies interpret "take" to include harassment from pishing or
>>>> playbacks because these activities can lead to bird mortality. For example,
>>>> a bird responding to a playback may become more visible to predators, may
>>>> inadvertently signal to predators the proximity of nests, or may abandon
>>>> the nest, entirely if they believe the source of the pishing or playback
>>>> poses as risk to themselves.  Additionally, many agencies (such as the
>>>> National Park Service and the Department of Defense) have even more
>>>> stringent mandates and legal authorities to implement regulations even more
>>>> protective of Migratory Birds than is found in the Migratory Bird Treaty
>>>> Act.
>>>>
>>>> My own view is there is a great deal of peer-reviewed, published
>>>> scientific literature which indicates phishing and playbacks can knock
>>>> individuals off of territories, make birds vulnerable to predators, or
>>>> cause birds to abandon nests. Given that pishing or playbacks can increase
>>>> risk to birds, the question I ask is "Does interacting with a bird through
>>>> the use of pishing or playbacks contribute to the conservation of the
>>>> bird?" In my own birding experiences I refrain from doing anything that
>>>> causes a bird to alter its behavior unless my doing so somehow contributes
>>>> to the well-being of the bird.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Kenneth W. McDonaldEnergy BiologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 446
>> Neal Street Cookeville, TN 38501Office: 931.525.4990 <931.525.4990>Fax:
>> 931.528.7075 <931.528.7075> kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx
>> <kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx>*
>>
>> Energy and persistence will conquer all things
>>
>> -  Benjamin Franklin
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Phillips
> Kingsport, Tennessee
>



-- 














*Kenneth W. McDonaldEnergy BiologistU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service446 Neal
StreetCookeville, TN 38501Office: 931.525.4990Fax:
931.528.7075kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx <kenneth_mcdonald@xxxxxxx>*

Energy and persistence will conquer all things

-  Benjamin Franklin

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. tn-bird
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2014