Scott (and Tweeters),



The point of your post was not missed. My message earlier today did not make
any reference to use of iPods or the ABA Code of Ethics, nor was it intended
to. It was strictly about whether certain species should be on the "State
Candidate" list. In effect, I changed the subject of discussion (as should
be evident from the fact that I changed the message header).



All the best,



Wayne C. Weber

Delta, BC

contopus at telus.net







From: Scott Downes [mailto:downess at charter.net]
Sent: December-04-10 1:22 PM
To: Wayne Weber; tweeters at u.washington.edu
Cc: EUGENE HUNN
Subject: Re: "State Candidate" species in WA



Tweets,

As Gene, Dennis and Wayne have commented on my post in terms of questioning
why these species are on the list, it appears that the point of my post was
missed. My post was NOT advocating that Species of Concern should be
avoiding when using Ipod or advocating that this was a "off limits list". If
somebody took that message from my post, then I'm sorry I didn't get the
point accross. My post was to point out that too often the ABA code of
ethics gets thrown around and I don't think people really have thought
through all the aspects of when they say "follow the ABA code of ethics". As
I quoted in my previous post, the ABA code says "Limit the use of recordings
and other methods of attracting birds, and never use such methods in heavily
birded areas, or for attracting any species that is Threatened, Endangered,
or of Special Concern, or is rare in your local area". I underlined the word
never as the code is fairly clear on this. So if you were to play tapes to
any of the species I listed, technically you'd be going against the ABA
code. I tend to believe that most species (with the exception of T&E
species) can tolerate some Ipod playing in moderation and that madoeration
should be increased during breeding season and for "species of concern".
Thus it might be just fine to play a tape briefly for a sage sparrow in
March (I have done it myself) but do it brief and if you don't get good
views, then oh well. Thus my post was more food for thought, i.e. in
accepting the ABA code are people aware that they are also agreeing to not
call in species of concern. So, perhaps a more thorough examination of the
ABA code is warranted if people believe that limited calling to many of
these species is ok.



I hope this final post helps to clarify my earlier post on the subject. If
people believe that there is strong evidence against a species status as
Wayne, Gene and Dennis seem to do on PIWO, I would suggest working with WDFW
staff (or at least contacting them).



Scott Downes

downess at charter.net

Yakima WA