‘The birding community’ hates birds: Pishing and Tape-Luring – Part 2
Posted on Jan 28, 2010 by jason
Energy cost, increased conspecific and intraspecific confrontations and interactions, and disruption of normal activity. These mean one thing: forced stress and aggression. That represents the combined general impact on individual birds when they respond to pishing or tape-luring. Any call used to bring birds out of hiding must elicit the same natural responses that would coincide with the call were it issued by another bird. For example, alarm calls must produce stress and aggression along with the correlative hormones that define those states. A challenger call would likewise produce the same physiological response. In truth, any call utilized must produce a physiological response in every bird that hears it regardless of whether or not they respond to it in person, and those who do respond to it must likewise take part in a compulsory meeting with other birds who respond. That is a meeting we can scarcely predict or control. Also, birds reacting to the calls must expend energy and must stop engaging in natural behavior in order to respond. So let us then turn to the existing science with hope of understanding how these practices can produce, in Professor Daniel J. Mennill’s words, “longlasting and far-reaching effects on individual fitness.”
Paulo G. Mota and Violaine Depraz, both from the Laboratory of Ethology, Institute of Environment and Life, Department of Anthropology, University of Coimbra at Coimbra, Portugal, published a paper entitled A Test of the Effect of Male Song on Female Nesting Behaviour in the Serin (Serinus serinus): a Field Playback Experiment. In it they said “[i]t is well established, through laboratory experiments, that male song in birds can stimulate female reproductive activity, affecting their behaviour and physiology, such as follicular growth, nest building and egg-laying.” Simple extrapolation based on everything we know about wildlife biology broadens that statement to mean a bird responding to a call demonstrates a physiological effect, whether it be fear in the nest, mobbing a predator, establishing a relationship, pair bonding with a mate, feeding offspring, investigating a threat, competing with a challenger, or any of a seemingly endless number of other purposes.
(Only humans have demonstrable capabilities for rendering communication as an empty gibbering without societal, relational or survival meaning. If you’ve ever suffered through a tedious dinner party conversation or listened to someone speak ad nauseam about nothing, you know precisely what I mean. In nature, however, communication always has purpose, a reason we might or might not understand, and its use as a meaningful and never-empty tool is established by more studies and science than can be contained in this series. Please feel free to investigate that on your own if you wish. You might start with this list of bird communication research and this list of animal communication research, both provided by Cornell University.)
Given that bird communication always means something and such communication requires some kind of physiological response, let me turn your attention to this: testosterone. The word elicits the mental image of male virility, strength and fitness. In the strict sense of physiology, testosterone is a steroid hormone and the most powerful natural androgen. While usually tasked with regulating secondary male sexual characteristics such as body hair and musculature, it also occurs naturally in both genders as a response to stress, at which time it acts as an amplifier for strength and endurance, most notably as a result of duress. I also point out that it increases aggressive tendencies. (This is all basic physiology. I encourage you to research testosterone independently if you would like a more detailed understanding.)
In their paper “Avoiding the ‘Costs’ of Testosterone: Ecological Bases of Hormone-Behavior Interactions”, John C. Wingfield and Sharon E. Lynn from the Department of Zoology, University of Washington at Seattle, and Kiran K. Soma from the Department of Physiological Science, University of California at Los Angeles, begin with this:
A combination of laboratory and field investigations of birds has shown that expression of behavior such as territorial aggression can occur throughout the year in many species and in different life history stages. Although it is well known that testosterone regulates territorial aggression in males during the breeding season, the correlation of plasma testosterone and aggression appears to be limited to periods of social instability when a male is challenged for his territory by another male, or when mate-guarding a sexually receptive female.
Thus they explain the two common times when testosterone levels are greatest in birds: during challenges and in the breeding season. This seems to have little to do with pishing and tape-luring though, given the specific times when the hormone level is highest. But the study goes on to address high testosterone levels outside those two naturally occurring “high tides”:
How essentially identical aggression is modulated in non-breeding life history stages is not fully resolved, but despite low circulating levels of testosterone outside the breeding season, expression of territorial aggression does appear to be dependent upon aromatization of testosterone and an estrogen receptor-mediated mechanism. There is accumulating evidence that prolonged high levels of circulating testosterone may incur costs that may potentially reduce lifetime fitness. These include interference with paternal care, exposure to predators, increased risk of injury, loss of fat stores and possibly impaired immune system function and oncogenic effects [causing tumors].
In a separate study (PDF) entitled “Reproductive Endocrinology of the Song Wren (Cyphorhinus pheaeocephalus), A Resident Bird of the Lowland Tropics,” Dr. Wingfield and coauthor D. S. Busch more specifically say that “[i]n many avian species, using conspecific playback to simulate a territorial intrusion results in an increase in LH [Luteinizing hormone] and T [testosterone] in the territorial male.” (One must accept as part of this finding that pishing causes the same result because it elicits a territorial and/or mobbing response, though I will certainly entertain corrections on that should someone be able to demonstrate forms of pishing that do not rely on challenger, predator, alarm or other stress-inducing calls.)
A disturbing aspect of elevated testosterone levels comes to light in “The Effects of Experimentally Elevated Testosterone on Parental Care in Female Dark-Eyed Juncos” (see previous PDF) by D.M. O’Neal, K. Pavlis and E.D. Ketterson (Indiana University, Bloomington, and University of Guelph). The research begins by reiterating a previous study on male dark-eyed juncos which found heightened testosterone levels decreased parental care by the adults. The scientists then performed a similar study on females of the species and discovered those with elevated levels of the hormone “showed a significant reduction in the number of nestlings fed per hour and in overall provisioning rate as compared to controls,” and they also realized the females “exhibited less nest defense than control females, and their nests were more likely to be lost to predators.” Keep in mind this is only due to the hormonal effects and not the generalized issue of being called away from a nest and/or young.
But stressor responses involve more than testosterone. Other hormones are involved in addition to physiological impacts outside those referred to above. An interesting piece of the puzzle comes from an unexpected source: “Why Does Stress Suppress Immunity? A Possible Answer From Insects.” (see previous PDF) by S.A. Adamo and N. Parsons from Dalhousie University. “Both vertebrates and mollusks (e.g. oysters) become more susceptible to disease after exposure to a stressor, suggesting that stress-induced immunosuppression is an old and wide spread phenomenon. […] Wound infection was more likely after restraint stress than in controls. Preliminary evidence suggests that the decline in immune function after stress is due to a physiological constraint involving carrier molecules (lipophorins) that are required both for ferrying lipid energy compounds from fat body to muscle as well as for normal immune function.”
This presents an interesting point. It obviously would behoove birders not to use either method in the presence of a wounded, ill, aged or otherwise susceptible individual. But how can one know when one or more weak individual birds are present before pishing or tape-luring? The answer is simple: one can’t know.
Lest we worry too much about stress and testosterone, however, allow me to focus on that “fat body to muscle” statement in the aforementioned study. When is fat most needed? Is it winter when food is scarce and energy reserves important, and temperatures low enough to require additional insulation? Is it spring and autumn when sufficient energy for migration is a must?—
Wait! What about nonmigratory birds? I know that question dwells heavily in the ether. Though the energy needs and constraints remain predictable for such species in the breeding and winter seasons, they face a different challenge in autumn and spring when migrants fill the air. That challenge is called increased competition. Nonmigratory birds must react to interlopers with the same vigor and stamina with which they would react to threats or challengers. In fact, additional threats and challengers fly through with every migratory bird, whether that be hawks or flycatchers or vireos or gulls. The underlying reasons for energy conservation may change for nonmigratory species during migration seasons, but the need for energy conservation does not change.
—Or is it the breeding season when mate guarding, protecting a nest and its eggs, and brooding and rearing young must be paramount? Or is it competing for social status in nonbreeding seasons when science already has shown females are more likely to change mating and parental decisions based on male success? Or more troubling, is it all of the above? The answer is all of the above. Birds do not watch television, they do not read books, they do not know of boardgames, and they have no comprehension of things like long walks after dark or endless conversations around the dinner table. No, birds know of one thing that rests at the crux of their existence: survival. This includes foraging, staying warm, migrating, nesting and brooding and caring for young, wooing a partner and mating, fighting predators and challengers and responding to threats, and otherwise focusing on ensuring fitness for procreation.
The question of asking—No, not asking. That’s the wrong word. Pishing and tape-luring are certainly not requests.—The question of demanding a bird respond and show itself due to calling boils down to forcing the bird to expend energy. Even researchers cannot know when that energy is abundant or in short supply unless they capture and examine the bird(s). Even researchers understand that current and previous environmental conditions coupled with individual fitness plays a role in a chaotic system where assumptions can be fatal and the truth rests somewhere beyond our reach. Even researches know that the health and condition of birds lies hidden even to the expert observer. As a matter of fact, even researches know that the impact of eliciting a response has untold and unknown repercussions on individual fitness, on mating, on physiology, and on health. This begs the question of precisely whose interest is being focused upon when birders utilize these methods simply because they want to see a species. Outside of scientific and research purposes, that’s an important consideration.
Which leads me to Mike Burrell, a researcher in the Faculty of Forestry, Earth Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, and an avid and respected birder. When asked about pishing and tape-luring as means to see a bird, he responded with this:
As far as bird song playback goes. It certainly stresses a bird. But, so does pishing, squeaking, etc. The difference between playing bird song for photography and pishing is that pishing might stress a bird for a few seconds, while playing a song would probably be for several minutes. I think that season doesn’t really matter, you are stressing the bird no matter the time of year. What does matter to me is basically that the bird isn’t repeatedly stressed. For example, I wouldn’t play a tape for a bird at Point Pelee in spring, but playing a tape for a Yellow Warbler in your local park once a season is reasonable. Again, if you pay attention to the bird, you should be able to tell you are stressing it. In all reality I think anyone who wants to play recordings should ask themselves if one person getting a photo of a bird is worth causing it stress. Doing bird research obviously has a purpose which we weigh as more important than the possible consequences of your actions. If birders are educated about the bird, they will make good decisions…
Good decisions… Therein lies the problem. Mike speaks of feeling comfortable with pishing and/or tape-luring with certain species in certain places despite admitting that both practices cause unnecessary stress. Why? Does he always know when and where the greatest impact will be? Does he have some insight into the possible strains these birds are already facing when a birder shows up and begins forcing the avifauna to respond? Does he assume or know outright what other activities have affected the birds when he recommends these practices as acceptable? The answer is clear: No. A resounding “no” in fact.
The inquiries already circle like moths to a flame: How much pishing and tape-luring is too much? If a lone birder enters an area where few visit, what harm is done by utilizing these methods? Assuming one is new to an area, how can it be dangerous to implement these lures? Since one cannot know the individual health or disposition of any bird in the area, why is it not safe to assume that pishing them from cover and tape-luring them from their hideouts aren’t judicious methods by which to see a bird that otherwise would go unnoticed?
It boils down to this: Why would a birder inflict known stress, energy consumption, forced confrontations and possible harm simply because they want to see a bird? What are they really concerned about: the health and well-being of the birds or their ability to see them? I can’t answer these questions; only “thye birding community” can. In cases of research, one can stride across those inferred boundaries with relative ease and reason. Yet when it comes to personal fulfillment, the really important answers are not mine to proffer. Is it about the birds or the birder? That’s the question that counts.
But I can tell you that the impacts from these practices go well beyond part 1 and part 2 of this series, well beyond interference in social structures and well beyond individual health, well beyond influencing and manipulating pairs and parents and relationships, well beyond irrefutable harm to the ill and infirm, and well beyond the damage to bodies belonging to those who are just trying to survive. I will explore yet another documented threat in part 3: increased predation. And you’ll be surprised to learn it extends far beyond adult birds who respond to calls.
[cross-posted to The Clade; of special interest is that many of the bird-related studies indicate that the stress-induced release of testosterone becomes more pronounced in species living in temperate and arctic areas as opposed to those living in tropical areas; that begs the question of where the majority of birding takes place]
Permalink Trackback
18 Responses to “‘The birding community’ hates birds: Pishing and Tape-Luring – Part 2”
Leave a Reply
- All posts
- All photos
- All videos
- Past Members:
Michelle
Jan 29, 2010
This is very interesting and a subject that comes up on birding lists. There is even a list of ‘birding ethics’ that is discussed from time to time. I am a newer birder and my birding is primarily my yard and surrounding area, but I have been mentored by a wildlife rehabber. I wouldn’t pish and I wouldn’t climb around looking for that rare bird that has been reported on the e-mail lists. I don’t want to cause more stress as I feel we humans already have stressed most living things. But when I think of things like nets for banding purposes which I suppose causes stress, I do understand the need for research to determine the health of a particular species. I guess I live by the motto ‘first do no harm’….
jason
Jan 30, 2010
Exactly right, Michelle! The “do no harm” ethic is my primary focus in life (and it’s also why I’m one of those radical vegans who won’t even wear wool). I know we stress birds simply by being there, so I worry about adding to that through pishing and tape-luring. Thankfully there’s good science to shed some light on those topics.
And I won’t argue against the methods used for research and science–including banding–as it’s necessary to be intrusive to get the data needed for sound policy and action (e.g., listing species as endangered and understanding migration routes so appropriate habitat can be maintained). My hope is that, when I finish this series, people will have a clearer understanding of the impact and will make better judgments about using these methods just so they can see a bird.
Amber Coakley
Jan 31, 2010
Even one person “pishing” once per year, multiplied by who-knows-how-many individuals, equals more disturbance to the birds than I would allow if I were in a position to control this. My conviction is that we just shouldn’t pish, period. And certainly not use audio playback.
I trained with my local bird banding group (the longest-running bird banding station in TX, btw) a couple of years ago. They are a great group of people, and I was fascinated by the data collection and its interpretation. Ultimately, I was unable to reconcile my concern for the birds and my desire to help increase our knowledge about them. The disturbance to the birds’ lives that banding and handling caused them was too much for me to bear, personally. I do believe that lawful protection of birds demands data, and I want to believe that the data collected through bird banding is ultimately used for this important purpose. It has been awhile since I have looked into this, but I would welcome any reassurance that banding data finds it way into documentation that actually helps protect birds and their habitats.
jason
Jan 31, 2010
I’ve reported bird bands to the BBL, Amber, but I only did so after looking into the practice. I feel comfortable that they use the data to study migrations, survival rates, locations of concern, and so on. And though I can appreciate the science of it, I can’t do it (I’ve been to one banding and had to walk away from it).
The cumulative impact from pishing and playback are major issues; then again, so is immediate impact like increased predation of adults and nests/young. The sad truth is that all this research has made me dislike the practices even more than I did before (though, again, for scientific and research purposes I know they’re necessary tools–even if that bothers me).
Thomas Riecke
Feb 08, 2010
Jason,
I decided to spend the evening working on my thesis proposal instead of watching a meaningless game, but was unable to concentrate due to an unfortunate occurrence. Anyway, I ended up dropping by your blog and read your last two posts. You’ve developed a very interesting and well-written summary of research on call playbacks. I want to go from point to point and discuss, but that would involve writing very technically and carefully (and if I do any of that tonight it’ll be for my thesis).
Lets divide this into two categories, pishing and call playbacks. I have been a part of groups who have performed both behaviors, and I pish quite a bit (although I’m trying to quit :]).
Pishing
-Birds do not always respond to pishing.
-I think it’s important to note (and you did) that avian social structures are complicated and any disruptive event can have far reaching impacts, a type of ‘butterfly effect’ if you will. A chickadee responds to pishing, encounters another chickadee, a birder just initiated a social encounter. Energy reserves are wasted. The birds entire life is altered in ways that we will never know. It’s entire life from that point on . . .
But . . .
have you ever flushed a bird while walking through the woods? Has a group of ducks ever taken flight as you strolled around a bend in the river? Ever scared deer off the road with your car? Ever startled an armadillo bustling through the leaves? Ever noticed an animal observing you as you sneaked closer for a photo? Everything you do affects everything else . . . you could make the argument that if you truly loved the environment, you would stay the hell away from it, commit suicide, disable bulldozers, kill as many humans as you possibly can .. . . I think you see my point. I think we both agree that pishing and call-playback are both detrimental to wildlife when not used for scientific research? But isn’t going for a walk in the woods as well? Where do you draw the line between human enjoyment and potential harm to wildlife? Sorry for the stream of consciousness style of writing, but I hope you understand my point. What about the hunter who shoots ducks but also contributes to ducks unlimited which then builds moist soil management units which have many duck populations increasing? He shoots birds but has a positive effect on them as a whole . . . ok, that’s enough rambling
Call playbacks
-I think you’ve overestimated the effectiveness of call playbacks, recent work on King Rails and a variety of secretive marsh birds that depend on vocalizations in thick marsh vegetation, (C. Conway) has found that call playbacks must be used up to 20 times at various sites to ensure that a species is not present (i.e. some species will typically call back one in five or one in ten times). Of course sometimes they will try to enter your car (a friend’s anecdote about Clapper Rails in the breeding season). But it’s not as if every single time someone plays a tape every bird within earshot goes nuts (although I’ve certainly seen instances when that description seems accurate). If every bird responded to every song/call/etc. they wouldn’t be able to survive.
I also feel as if you picked on Mike Burrell a bit. It should be noted that Mike’s ‘feelings’ or ‘assumptions’ are no more vague than other researchers’ observations. There is no real way to quantify call playback (other than perhaps hormone levels, but the capture of birds to evaluate their hormone levels would obviously be more of a stressor than the playback itself). Do you see what I’m saying here? Research has indicated that call-playbacks do have an effect, but it is certainly not always (or even often) enough to eliminate individuals from the gene pool, and it is impossible to quantify (in an ironic twist of fate, this might actually be helpful in some instances, you mentioned that some individuals (BCCH?) lost parentage when they ‘lost’ to a recorded song, so . . . . the males that won gained parentage, passing down genes with more developed songs . . . ).
Anyway, I guess that my point is that I feel that while your concerns are legitimate and well-voiced, I think this issue is far less frightening than say a rapidly increasing human population, habitat loss, global warming, mosquito borne illnesses (west nile did a number on corvids . . . Brown Jays and Tamaulipas Crows have almost disappeared from the United States), Botulism, wildfires, invasive species, feral cats, office buildings with glass windows, wind farms, tv towers, cell phone towers, telephone lines, petroleum production, etc. . . . and I enjoy playing devil’s advocate. It’s a very complicated issue, and I enjoyed the read.
Thomas Riecke
jason
Feb 08, 2010
I think, Thomas, that there’s a bit of a strawman in thinking that disturbing birds through mere presence is equal to disturbing them through presence coupled with calling/playback. Add to that how conservation has been supported and advanced by encouraging people to get out into the wild (Ecuador and Guatemala are great examples of this in action). Hence it would be counterproductive to suggest what you imply (stay away from nature). There is an accepted equilibrium attained through passive observation, which is my method, and it stands in direct contrast to active flushing or calling. But your remark is a good example of reductio ad absurdum via devil’s advocate, and I welcome the feedback in the spirit of what’s necessary: it behooves us always to think of our impact and to diminish our footprint as much as possible.
On the playback question, though I’ve never used it, my opinion is based on the research and the reports of others–like those participating in the CBC. There are exceptions, of course, and neither method is 100% reliable, but the scientific implications are clear on both: increased stress, increased predation (which I’ll cover next), increased social disruption, increased conspecific and intraspecific interactions, interference with normal behavior, and increased energy use. And all so someone can see a bird?
As for there being no way to quantify playback, what we do have is the research showing a very real impact on lifetime fitness and social order, not to mention the implications on health and longevity based on ripple-effect repercussions from the playback. I think your statement in this case is kith and kin to saying we can’t quantify how much pollution is too much–something we can only know when we finally tip the scale; such an argument might be technically true, but in the face of the research available we need no spreadsheet to see the harm.
There are larger issues, I wholeheartedly agree, but with an estimated 61 million birders in the United States alone, I also think this is a very real issue that needs to be addressed. It’s also part of a much larger critical look at “the birding community”–not necessarily a focus only on these practices. (Keep in mind by “the birding community” I do not mean science and research.)
Michelle
Feb 08, 2010
This is a really interesting discussion that you have provoked Jason. It made me remember that when I was researching wood ducks and how to put up a nesting box near the pond, I contacted the Wood Duck Society and it turned out that they were mostly woodie hunters. I had to ask why I was helping wood ducks when they were going to shoot them. It was presented to me as an oxymoron.
The issue of stress in birds is an interesting one. I don’t think wildlife experiences that same kind of stress when someone walks around as when we are pishing or calling. Birds are used to being mindful of predators, but interfering with their contact calls is wrong. I think that scientific research on any animal is stressful and has to be balanced with the value to the species as a whole. That doesn’t include the casual birder. IMHO.. Michelle
jason
Feb 08, 2010
Quite right, Michelle, though I’m prone to support scientific research even when it contradicts my personal thoughts. (As a zealot vegan who abhors any harm to animals and who won’t even wear wool, I’m still tolerant of the need to understand. I’ve been to bird bandings and can’t stand to do so again because I heard the most awful sounds coming from captured animals, but I appreciate the need for banding and the science it supports. I just won’t play a part in it.)
And you are quite right when it comes to stress by association (walking around) as opposed to stress by infliction (calling and playback added atop being there in the first place). I’m amazed that people think it possible to separate the two by saying being there is stressful, therefore being there and pishing/luring must be no more stressful despite the double damage. In psychological terms, that’s called “cognitive dissonance.”
Thomas Riecke
Feb 08, 2010
Jason, just read your reply. I agree with you that pishing and call-playbacks are in most cases totally uneccessary and can even be detrimental to an individual’s or even a species’ health, but I’d say that your pollution argument was a bit of a straw-man. I just don’t think the negative behaviors of some birders (and you know there aren’t 61 million people out there pishing
, i doubt there are 610,000 thousand birders obsessive enough to pish, be reasonable, I once got into the same argument with Ted Eubanks on TEXBIRDS) even begin to approach the positives which arise from the birding community (greater exposure to the outdoors, environmental awareness, etc.)
I forgot to mention that you failed to touch on bird-feeding. Will this be the topic of a later post?
At the end you stated that by “the birding community” you don’t mean scientific research . . . Jason, “the birding community” is responsible for the ONLY TWO NATIONWIDE AVIAN POPULATION CENSUSES . . . which scientists like myself draw our conclusions/initial estimates from, and “the birding community” often leads people, like myself, to become scientists . . .
oh, and Michelle, I’ve done the same thing, I even have their book! And yes it is ironic that the people who have done the most for ducks are the ones who want to kill them, but there is an 11% excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment, the proceeds of which go directly into conservation. I don’t have the specific numbers in front of me, can provide them if interested. A similar attempt to place a tax on birdfeeders and seed was tossed out . . .
my .02
Michelle
Feb 08, 2010
Thomas…thanks for taking an interest in wood ducks. I think they really need our help as the non-native starlings out compete them for nests as you know. I’ve had them for two years on the pond and they are wonderful little ducks. I wonder how much meat you get off a woodie.
Thomas..go work on your thesis. My daughter just defended her dissertation last spring (yea) and it was a grueling process.
I will let you two guys discuss… if you want to talk about another interesting topic, Talk about outside cats with birders and it gets very ugly as some people feel that cats have the right to be (non-native killers) free.
My two cats..’dam it Ollie’ and ‘oh shit Elliott” are indoors
jason
Feb 08, 2010
All of my cats are indoors. In fact, four of them are rescued/adopted off the street. I’m with you, Michelle. They’re not natural and not normal in the outside world, although there are interesting questions about our extermination/extirpation of true wildcats and whether or not domestic cats are filling those empty roles (I have no comment on that but mention it because it’s an interesting intellectual exercise).
Michelle
Feb 08, 2010
I forgot to add…I know that the money goes for conservation and I don’t have a problem with hunting.. responsible hunting where sober people go out and humanly kill animals that they then eat. But these guys are out using calls and lures to hunt and that bothers me…but hell, I am a tree hugging liberal. Just ask any of my (non-tree hugging) neighbors…
jason
Feb 08, 2010
The pollution argument was not an argument, Thomas. It was a comparison. Again to say, it was reductio ad absurdum based on your original comment. Please don’t confuse reduction to the absurd with belief or argument. That’s yet another of your logical fallacies. Feel free to reread what I said to understand I was not making that argument but was instead making a comparison. If that’s a faulty line of reasoning, it’s not mine.
Telling me I know there aren’t 61 million people out there pishing and tape-luring is nothing short of presumptive supposition by an insider. I can’t prove a negative; can you? I can show the statistics that prove that number of birders (or more by now since that’s an old number). I can also show multiple instances and locations where species no longer respond in toto to either method due to their overuse. (I will show that in a future post as it speaks to other concerns.) I’m interested to know how you can prove your statement in this matter.
Bird feeding was covered in previous comments.(example). If you feel I must cover that science and truth, I will be happy to do so, though I’m inclined to leave it as is since that activity is proved to be quite complicated.
Please don’t use all caps except in limited circumstances, Thomas. Shouting at me does nothing more than elicit my wrath. A word here or there lends boldness for those who can’t actually create a bold word, but otherwise it’s just needless screaming. Step back and calm down. I’m tolerant and open to reasonable debate and discussion, but I’m not beyond putting my foot down when someone repeatedly questions my manhood or challenges me by yelling. You’ve done both.
Thomas Riecke
Feb 09, 2010
Well, I’ve tried to argue with you from point to point, but we’re obviously not getting anywhere and I’m offending you. That’s no good. This will be my last post on your blog.
Let me phrase my actual point as bluntly as possible. What contributions have you made to the well-being of birds that you feel self-righteous enough to lambast the ‘birding community’ at large about their indulgence in a behavior which is completely unquantifiable, and negligible when compared to other, much more serious threats (habitat loss? lack of knowledge? there are literally hundreds of things more threatening to birds than pishing and call-playback)? Especially when it is the same community which provides the only nation-wide avian database
And as an aside to the ‘61 million birders statistic,’ which I see quoted all too frequently. This would mean that about one in five Americans were birders . . . correct? Perhaps one in five people feed birds in their backyards, but if one in five were birders (i.e. active in the field) then we’d have about one million birders in the DFW Metroplex (5 million total pop. last I heard). Don’t you think the UTSW Rookery would have more than ten people there on weekend mornings? Or perhaps we’d have 100,000 (10% of the ‘birding’ public) observers on the Dallas CBC instead of fifty (0.005% of the ‘birding’ public). This is a statistic that is not truly representative of the current situation of citizen science. Of course I cannot prove a negative, but I can note a blatant misrepresentation of facts. Misrepresenting statistics is disingenuous. Perhaps this is just an example of your lack of understanding of vocabulary commonly used in ‘the birding community.’ ‘Birder’ and ‘birdwatcher’ are not considered the same thing. I would consider a birder to be an active contributor to citizen science and leave it at that.
To close, perhaps the self-proclaimed second best birder in the state should take a step back and redirect his focus towards more important issues (i.e. really hammer out a population census at the rookery this spring and back up your data, participate in several CBCs a year, and when you get some more experience, start or fill an empty BBS route). Don’t sit behind your computer and tell us we’re all bad people for pishing. Go do something positive. Be a careful observer, you posted a lengthy and accusatory note on the local Audubon forum recently which basically said “I don’t make mistakes,” then posted a misidentified picture of a bluebird three weeks later for chrissakes. Why do you expect respect when you behave in this manner?
jason
Feb 10, 2010
The census at the rookery is not from me, Thomas. The 2008 census from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department biologists included 73 species. That missed green herons, tricolored herons and great-crested flycatchers–and who knows how many other species. I suggest rather than trolling my blog and trying to make yourself better than others that you do a bit of research.
To help you, Texas’s retention policy might have killed that report for TPWD, but I can assure you that the “Physical Plant” (facilities management) group at UTSWMC still has the report. If you want to question me, get your facts right first. When you have the TPWD report in hand, let’s talk.
And yes, you’ve tried to argue. From the standpoint of superiority rather than true interest. You have one cause here: being better than me and proving that I’m wrong. You failed. You failed when you attacked my honesty with your quips about my hard drive failure and how that impacted your self-proclaimed superiority. If TPWD can identify 73 species in two days in a space of 3.5 acres in an urban motte, I’m left wondering about your masterful birding over two days with regards to the whole of North Texas. I’m not the one you’re arguing with, Thomas. Get that right.
As for the well-being of birds, look into who masterminded the effort to get official protection for the UTSWMC rookery. Look carefully. Ask Betsy. Ask Anna. Ask the UTSWMC staff. Ask WFAA. Ask the Texas legislature and the UT Board of Regents. Obviously we’ll be quite interested to hear at least one example from your own past in that regard.
You spend a great deal of time focusing on details which I’ve yet to cover, and you do so as means to prove yourself smarter and better and superior. Patience is not your virtue. If you want me to get to habitat loss, give me time rather than demanding you get your way now. But you won’t like that answer either, because it’s going to challenge your next hamburger and your next serving of cornbread and your next turkey serving at Thanksgiving. No, Thomas, you won’t like those answers any more than you like the answers given thus far; you won’t like them because they intrude upon your wants–wants to be smarter and better and to have your desires fulfilled without interruption.
And show me where I’ve misrepresented statistics and facts. The 61 million is from the most recent estimate I had on hand (to be covered, but here’s the PDF). Note it’s from the 80s. Makes one wonder how that number has grown since then…
The science covered so far is not my own but that presented by researchers. As someone who did study statistics and probability in college, you’ll find it an impossible task to make me look bad with mathematics–but most especially when I’m only quoting from available research and reports.
And again we have the personal attacks. What makes you an expert, Thomas? What makes you believable? You said in your previous comments that my experience at White Rock Lake challenged your “own experiences” with regards to species and when/how often they might be expected. Unfortunately, you don’t live here and you don’t have the four decades of experience–on site and in person–that I have. Talk about self-proclaimed expert. Talk about deception and dishonesty. You know what’s in the books and what you’ve been told, but you seem to lack the real-world experience with regards to WRL–the only location I’ve ever questioned with regards to records.
jason
Feb 10, 2010
Oh, sorry: I admit “for chrissakes” that I made a mistake. I admitted as much in the bluebird thread. Though I notice you didn’t mention Betsy misidentified a chipping sparrow, or that others turned ruddy ducks into black scoters, or that even Betsy–your revered and honored expert–said “we’ve all had our embarrassing misidentifications in the field.”
I’m not perfect, Thomas, though I’m confident in decades of observation as compared to silly one-season misidentifications based on tangential traits that lead us astray. (‘Us’ being the term used for normal humans who make mistakes, mind you.)
And the “I don’t make mistakes” accusation is false. What I said was that decades of sightings and experience meant I wasn’t mistaken about seeing something in winter. Sure, a silly and stupid error in one year seems important, but photos and notes and memories from 20 years is something completely different–as I made clear.
I’m really sorry it’s this difficult to have a sound debate where we can challenge assumptions without being attacked personally. You’re a smart man. I see that and respect that. I’d be honored and gracious to learn from you.
Laura
Feb 20, 2010
In case you’re wondering why I’m lurking on this series of posts, Jason, it’s just to follow up and grab the research links to send to a friend.
jason
Feb 20, 2010
Too funny, Laura! No, not at all. I don’t look at site stats unless an alarm goes off (as was the previous case due to load). Since this is a dedicated server, I pay for my traffic, hence there’s this little dashboard alarm that goes off when it crosses a certain threshold. You’d be a miracle to make that alert pop up.
And thank you for reminding me that I need to get the next part of this series posted. I’ve been remiss–and I have so much more to cover.