To be fair, this article is not about "taping" per se. Nevertheless, Birding With Batteries recycles some of the more popular "taping" mythology that is so often associated with articles that discusses "taping" in a casual way. "Taping" amounts to using an electronic or artificial lure to call in birds.
The article's tag line states, "High-tech gear comes into the field with us." Photographs in the article appear to show someone, perhaps Ms. Catlin, in the field holding what looks like a "taping" platform. Text in the article's sidebar states that, "increasing numbers of bird watchers and ornithologists are relying on technology in the field, especially equipment that plays bird song and sounds." The article does make the point "taping" is at best a controversial subject, but the article spends no time at all discussing why this is the case. No matter how many times I read Birding With Batteries, I come away with the impression that "taping" is something other than the unethical birding practice it so obviously is.
Birding With Batteries, so far as I can tell, explores the world of high-tech birding. Ms. Catlin wants to know who is using certain high-tech birding gear; whether some birders are more technologically inclined than others; and if birders "draw parallels between the use of technology in bird watching and steroids in sports, since both "additives" enhance the users ability?" This article asks a number of questions, but it somehow fails to answer them. Regardless, I question the form of one of Ms. Catlin's questions, since there is absolutely no proof that "taping" somehow enhances a birder's ability.
To answer her questions, Ms. Catlin designed a six-question survey, which she apparently distributed to List Servs in Virginia, Ohio, & one of the Carolinas. Ms. Catlin does not discuss her survey questions in her article, so I have no way of knowing what these questions are. Nor does Ms. Catlin tell me how many birders responded to her survey.
The article suggests that "taping" enhances a birder's ability or provides some other competitive advantage. That many birders believe this is obvious. However, this "taping" mythology is birding buffoonery of the highest order. To begin with, using an electronic lure is hardly a substitute for birding skill of field craft, and no one reading Birding With Batteries should be left with the impression that "taping" is some kind of performance booster, especially since the practice is at best controversial and at worst is unethical.
Texas. April 2001. A four person team competes in a Big Day event where "taping" is permitted. The winning team competes without "taping" because it feels the trend in birding is towards ethical birding. This team records 233 species in a 24-hour period, shattering a North American Big Day record that had previously stood for 23 years. This demolishes the theory that "taping" is some kind of performance booster.
Ms. Catlin discusses the manner in which the introduction of binoculars eventually contributed to the decline of the shotgun ornithology practiced in another era. "Thank goodness," Ms. writes. The idea, I suppose, is that technology equates to progress.
I will not argue here with Ms. Catlin's assertion that the introduction of binoculars eventually makes shotgun ornithology obsolete, though for the sake of clarity, the decline in shotgun ornithology had at least as much to do with the eventual acceptance of sight records as did the introduction of binoculars.
Nevertheless, using "taping" platforms outside the construct of legitimate scientific inquiry can hardly be thoughtfully discussed as progress. We ought not to be thanking our lucky stars for the advent of "taping" platforms or treating "electronic playback" as some kind of gift to the birding world at large. Those who believe that "taping" represents some higher, more modern, form of birding are uninformed, misinformed, in denial, or delusional.
Binoculars, for instance, are a mostly passive birding tool. They permit birders to look at birds from a distance. In effect, binoculars try to get us the satisfying looks we crave by limiting the potential for disturbance, while "taping" platforms are specifically intended to create disturbance by calling birds in.
Ms. Catlin points out that her survey respondents are "united in their thoughtfulness toward each other and the animals they watch." With respect to "taping," this is wishful thinking. So far as I can see, there is not much in the way of goodwill between those of us birding passively and those who insist on birding by any means necessary, i.e. "taping." Moreover, "taping" can hardly be described as "thoughtful behavior," especially since the practice is so often abused in unbelievably thoughtless ways.
Clearly, "taping" demonstrates a lack of respect for birds, birders, and birding in ways that have nothing to do the actual harm the practice causes. Regardless, comparing binoculars with "taping" platforms and/or the march of progress is a largely pointless and misleading exercise that has nothing much to do with either the underlying rationale for "taping" or birding with batteries.
Ms. Catlin dutifully repeats the nonsense that birders "taping" are nearly untied in their belief that the practice should be "used sparingly, carefully, and conscientiously in order to minimize potential danger to birds (by attracting predators, wasting birds' energy, or causing parents to neglect their young)."
This birding dribble flows directly from the American Birding Association's (ABA) often cited and defective limited "taping" construct. There is no such thing as "responsible taping," a construct invented to drape those "taping" in some self-serving mantle of legitimacy.
How exactly are "taping" platforms to be used "sparingly?" How are they to be used "carefully?" For how long and how often should birds be "taped?" Should amplified speakers be used in "taping" platforms? Should breeding birds, passage migrants, and winter residents be subjected to "taping's" vagaries?"
Survey the "taping" community on these and other important questions, and it will not take long to discover that the very people who promote this unethical birding practice cannot even be bothered to answer these questions in some uniform way, much less in a way that makes some kind of sense.
Here is a novel thought. If we really wish to avoid causing the "taping" dangers referred in Ms. Catlin's article, perhaps we should avoid the practice altogether, instead of simply trying to limit the harm we cause! Yes, birding often involves disturbance of one kind or another, but "taping" is clearly an altogether avoidable disturbance.
One of Ms. Catlin's respondents, no doubt a "thoughtful birder," adds this gem to her article. Referring to technology in general, this birder remarks, "If it us for your enjoyment and it does not interfere with someone else's experience, have at it."
"Have At It," a combat birder's battle cry. Welcome to the wonderful world of combat birding, where birding by any means necessary is a much coveted and equally useless principle of birding. In spite of the many ways that "taping" is rationalized, "Have At It" pretty much describes the rules of the road vis-a'-vis "taping." This is hardly progress. And, birding with batteries cannot possibly make this birding behavior any more lame than it already is.
Notes:
Here in Virginia, the Virginia Department of Inland Game & Fisheries (VDGIF) has published its responsible wildlife viewing tips. VDGIF recommends birders "avoid "using artificial calls and lures" which disrupt natural animal behavior.
The Virginia Society of Ornithology (VSO) has adopted a Code of Birding Ethics that does not endorse recreational "taping" because of the potential for harm. Somehow, the VSO also manages to adopt the ABA's limited "taping" construct in its Code. This birding buffoonery is made even more confusing because the VSO continues to be unwilling to tell its membership and others that "taping" is actually prohibited at many public land venues without benefit of a special use or research permit. How foolish is this?
