All,
First, the American Birding Association's Code (ABA) of Birding Ethics
is a joke. This so-called Code is poorly written, intentionally vague,
fails to define key terms, fails also to address material questions,
and utterly fails to provide any meaningful guidance on the subject of
taping and the use of an electronic lure to attract birds. In fact,
the Code specifically fails to even mention the practice of taping.
Pretty convenient for a sporting organization that consistently
manages to masquerade as a birding association.
Second, A Code of Ethics of any kind is supposed to clear up
confusion, not create it. With respect to the practice of taping, the
ABA Code, as written, hardly clears up confusion. In fact, it clearly
creates it.
Third, the provisions of a Code of Ethics of any kind cannot be self-
selecting, which is to say that subscribers to a Code cannot pick and
choose which of its provisions they will adhere to. You subscribe to
an entire Code, not pieces of one.
Fourth, with a straight face the ABA cannot possibly say in the
Preamble of its so-called Code of Birding Ethics that in any conflict
between birders and birds must be resolved in favor of the birds, and
then go on in Section 1.1 of its Code to tell birders to limit the use
of use of recordings and other methods to attract birds. There are two
obvious problems with this construction. First, taping is clearly
controversial, creating the very conflict between birders and birds
discussed in the Preamble of the ABA Code. If, according to the ABA,
birds are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt in these
circumstances, how it possible then that the ABA can go on to say in
Section 1.1 that birders should limit the use of recordings and other
methods of attracting birds, completely ignoring the conflict
discussed above. Simply limiting the use of recordings and other
methods to attract birds hardly amounts to resolving this conflict
between birders and birds in favor of the birds. This is one of many
reasons why that ABA Code cannot be taken seriously.
The second problem with the language used in Section 1.1 of the code
is that the language itself is meaningless. Exactly how does the ABA
suggest that birders limit the use of recordings and other methods to
attract birds? Does this language mean that birders should limit the
amount of time a tape is played? Does it mean that tapes should not be
played in the breeding bird season? By choosing to publish a Code that
is intentionally vague, the ABA has created a perfect storm; first
through the use of its conveniently vague language, and second because
this construction is not only inconsistent with the language used in
the Code's Preamble, but also creates a circumstance where individuals
birders and others are free to decide what the Code actually says and
means. The Hippocratic oath in the medical field does not direct
doctors to limit the harm they do. The oath directs doctors to do no
harm.
Fifth, it is a fact that many public refuges prohibit the practice of
taping altogether, or permit it only with the benefit of a qualified
research or special use permit. The ABA Code of Birding Ethics ignores
this important fact altogether. What exactly is the point of using
vague language asking birders to in general limit their use of
recordings and other methods to attract birds, and then failing to
take notice of the fact that on many public lands taping is either a
prohibited or regulated activity. The ABA has absolutely no problem
advising birders not to bird on private property in Section 2A of its
Code. It should be just as clear with respect to the status of taping
on some public lands.
Sixth, the ABA tells birders not to tape in heavily birded areas in
Section 1.1 of its Code. Well, what in the hell is the definition of a
"heavily birded" area? Perhaps it might be helpful if the ABA defined
some of the terms it uses in its Code. Regardless, try as I might I
just can't seem to find the list of Virginia's "heavily birded" areas.
Oh I get it, we all get to decide individually what the definition of
a "heavily birded " area is. Yeah, the ABA Code certainly looks like a
workable Code to me.
Seventh, the notion that taping is somehow alright so long as the
birds being taped are not threatened, endangered, of special concern,
or locally rare is laughable (Section 1.1 of the Code). First, I know
Virginia birders who consider themselves to be veteran birders with
IPods who could not define species of concern or give me a list of the
species that are locally rare here in Northern Virginia. By the way,
where is the combat birders taping manual anyway? I can find reputable
information that has been published on almost birding subject
imaginable. We have field guides, volumes that have been written about
birding behavior, biology, and ecology, books on advanced birding,
books on bird photography, digiscoping; you name it. Name that
resource that discusses in detail how, when, and under what
circumstances it is appropriate to tape birds. Oh, I get it.
individual birders get to decide these questions too, right.
There is a really interesting essay published in the the book Good
Birders Don't Where White, where an ABA birder of the year discusses
ways in which he hooks his IPod up to his automobile speakers to call
in owls, all because his hand-held speakers are not powerful enough.
If combat birders want to play tapes and then hide behind the ABA's so
called Code Of Birding Ethics, perhaps this crowd could take a few
minutes off from their taping activities to actually publish a
comprehensive guide to taping. I am absolutely certain this reference
would make fascinating reading. Bear in mind, that pishing books
supposedly teaching birders how to pish have already been published.
What exactly is holding up the Combat Birders Guide to taping?
I love it when combat birders discuss the supposedly "judicious" use
of taping. After all, who could possibly know more about disturbing,
threatening, and provoking a response from birds than a combat birder?
I love it when combat birders compare pishing with taping, as if
pishing could possibly justify the practice of taping. You truly have
to be either brain dead or delusional to subscribe to this kind of
defective thinking.
Eighth, the notion that there is no science that suggests that taping
causes actual harm to birds is wishful thinking. The science does
exist. More importantly, passive birders don't have to prove that
taping causes actual harm. Instead, this burden falls squarely on the
shoulders of combat birders who are they very people who play tapes to
attract birds. Where then is the science that proves taping causes no
harm. This too will make fascinating reading.
Ninth, the list of Virginia bird clubs and groups that have not
actually subscribed to a Code of Birding Ethics is frightfully large.
How is this possible? Quick: find me a Virginia Bird Club web site
from the VSO on down that has actually published a Code of Birding
Ethics on its web site? I would be amazed to find a single club that
has done this, and I am absolutely convinced that most have not.
Contrast this with the Maryland Ornithological Society and many, many
other bird clubs and groups all over this country that have not only
subscribed to a Code of Birding Ethics but have actually published
their respective Codes on their club and organization web sites.
But, not to worry, until the Combat Birding Guide To Taping is finally
published, Virginia Birders are indeed fortunate to have Jay Keller
using VA-Bird to opine on the best way to play tapes for Brown
Thrashers in winter months. Clearly, in the absence of any meaningful
ethical guidance on this subject from the American Birding
Association, the Virginia Society of Ornithology, and the leadership
of most Virginia Bird Clubs, we can all feel a little more secure
knowing that Jay is prepared to step into the breach and provide the
rest of us with the kind of intelligent, insightful, and ethical
guidance that will surely light our way ahead.
Paul Kane
Falls Church, VA.
