I agree, the wording should be firmer and more direct, otherwise some folks can find ways to defend their unethical actions.
I do commend them for offering a Spanish version of the code of ethics.
Izzy Wong
Sent from my iPhone
>
On Jan 19, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Paul Bannick <paul.bannick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
Agreed! Thanks for voicing these concerns
>
>>
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 5:59 PM Patricia Quyle Grainger <paq at olypen.com> wrote:
>>
Very well stated! Thank you! I have been concerned about recordings being used for a long time.
>>
>>
Pat Quyle Grainger
>>
Port Townsend
>>
>>
>>
Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 5:08 PM, J. Acker <owler at sounddsl.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
> Tweeters,
>>
> I for one was disappointed with the release of the recently updated ABA Code of Ethics, specifically Section 1b concerning the use of recordings. When the ABA was soliciting input on proposed changes last fall, I provided feedback and informed them of the illegality of the use of playback in National Parks as well that the use of playback targeted for Spotted Owls is considered harassment. I requested that they consider rewriting 1b to provide stronger language. In my opinion, the ABA wimped out when they provided the "guidance" in Section 1b that the use of playback should be "limited… in heavily birded areas, for species that are rare in the area, and for species that are threatened or endangered." This statement has no backbone and provides no support whatsoever for the birder in the field confronted with a situation in which playback is being targeted against an individual bird. (Think Havillah Great Gray Owl or a Spotted Owl). The ABA committee responsible for the Code of Ethics may as well have neglected even mentioning playback as a topic of ethical concern, as what they provided has no meaning, as the word "limited" is debatable. The ABA of all organizations should be at the forefront of protecting birds, especially those that are threatened, endangered or under stress, but this particular section of the revised code does not appear to put the bird's interests first. I had hoped that the leadership at ABA would lead rather than follow the tide.
>>
>
>>
> J. Acker
>>
> owler at sounddsl.com
>>
> Bainbridge Island, WA
>>
>
>>
> -----Original Message-----
>>
> From: Tweeters [mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Izzy & Kendrick
>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 2:22 PM
>>
> To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
>>
> Subject: [Tweeters] ABA Code of Birding Ethics
>>
>
>>
> Hi all,
>>
>
>>
> I'm not sure how to locate the recent ABA Code of Birding Ethics. My understanding is that there were a few changes made a couple of months ago. If someone could help me access this new code, I'd be most appreciative.
>>
>
>>
> Thanks for any assistance!
>>
>
>>
> izzy wong
>>
> seattle, wa
>>
> gobirder at gmail.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
>>
> Tweeters mailing list
>>
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>>
> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>>
>
>>
>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>>
> Tweeters mailing list
>>
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>>
> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
>>
Tweeters mailing list
>>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
>
--
>
Now Available:
>
Owl: A Year in the Lives of North American Owls at:
>
http://paulbannick.com/shop/owl-a-year-in-the-lives-of-north-american-owls/
>
>
>
Paul Bannick Photography
>
www.paulbannick.com
>
206-940-7835
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20200120/6d30deb4/attachment.html>