Your clarification puts me totally in your camp...again, I would also agree with the notion that the DNR could have been more inviting and inclusive in this process. Hopefully the heat they take from this decision will motivate them to carefully consider how they approach future decisions involving a major change in management. That being said, I don't think the notion held by some that this is an inappropriate or unjustified decision is supported by any evidence that has been presented. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL
--- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte <[email protected]> wrote: From: linda whyte <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:32 PM They wouldn't publish hard-copy, I hope, except in limited quantity to make available in libraries that might lack internet connection. Most folks could read their data and conclusions on a particular topic online---and post questions and comments, too, in advance of decisions. It might at least reassure that recommendations were based on appropriate study, and the decision process had some transparency. Linda On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Eric Harrold <[email protected]> wrote: Not a bad idea Linda...the only thing the agencies are going to say on this is that it will cost more taxpayer dollars to publish such information. And those dollars are getting harder to come by. Eric Harrold Urbana, IL --- On Tue, 7/27/10, linda whyte <[email protected]> wrote: From: linda whyte <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue (SHCR) To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 5:44 PM Eric, Your answer suggests a simple solution to part of the issue: perhaps when monitoring, the agency SHOULD "write it up" to "publish it" as needs be, when a request is made for rationale on a policy decision. As for damage caused by birders, we as a group are probably neither more nor less guilty of that than hunters, or other recreational users of the natural environment. There are among us both the thoughtless and the thoughtful in habit, but there is a code of ethics based on care for the birds and their habitat. Many of us do our birding on foot or bike, carpool when appropriate, avoid chasing, join in clean-up efforts, stay on designated trails, tread respectfully in breeding areas, maintain nest boxes for various species, engage in citizen science etc. I think the controversy erupted over genuine concern that the decision was made without adequate study to ensure no negative impact on the species, and over the fear that this was setting a poor precedent. Linda Whyte On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Eric Harrold <[email protected]> wrote: > Terence, > > Just because a research professor didn't send a grad student out during the > stated time period doesn't mean data wasn't being collected. Agency personnel > routinely conduct annual surveys on most migratory game bird species, but do > not write it up and publish it as it qualifies as monitoring rather than > research. Do you think count data from stopover and wintering habitat has no > bearing on decisions? Much easier to gauge the population as a whole at this > time. Such counts are used to assess many wintering waterfowl populations on > NWRs in the southern US during winter. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Terence Brashear <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Terence Brashear <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: [email protected], "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:14 AM > > > > > > > Eric > > You state: > > "In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. " > > Doing a search of all the scientific journals using SORA shows that there are > no recent scientific studies of the Midwest Population of Sandhill Crane. I > did a search from 1989-2010. > > Seeing that there is no recent studies I would think there is no biological > basis for them to be hunted in the state of MN. > > Jan Green's initial message was well worded and knowing Jan's background she > has a strong biological understanding of birds. She even stated: > > "Regardless how one feels about hunting, and I am not philosophically > opposed, this was a terrible decision. It was done without any analysis of > the science or the management implications for the several crane sub-species." > > Seems to me that Jan made a good point that was backed by sound thinking. > > Terry Brashear > Hennepin County, MN > http://www.naturepixels.com > birdnird AT yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, Eric Harrold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Eric Harrold <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 8:35 AM > > > Kurt, > > Hopefully the management of natural resources isn't directed according to any > particular "opinion" that is largely a moralistic evaluation, be it mine or > anyone else's. I'm sure that an adequate and appropriate quantity of data > were used to arrive at the conclusion that a crane season would have no > adverse impact on populations involved. Resource folks usually don't just > pull decisions out of thin air. I would imagine that birders as a group would > largely have similar sentiments toward harvest of falconry birds, although > they could provide no biological justification for not allowing a harvest > other than for something like a Snail Kite. Some birders have a "can't take, > can't use" philosophy that they feel needs to be imposed on everyone. > Ironically, they likely cause more damage to breeding bird populations than > any other resource user group, be it consumptive or non-consumptive, as they > disturb nesting birds, trample habitat, and have a huge carbon > footprint due to the inclination to chase vagrants over thousands of miles. > > In short, any opinion that lacks a biological basis has little or less > validity than those that do...in my book anyway. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Stefanie Moss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Stefanie Moss <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue > (SHCR) > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 10:08 PM > > > I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I would guess that indeed > most birders would oppose a crane hunt and- would like a public process to > express their opinion as well as to ask questions regarding the hunt. > As residents and tax payers, I believe they are entitled to expect as much. > In much the same way, I would imagine that if the DNR suddenly closed the > duck season, hunters such as yourself would oppose the move and would like > an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Just a guess. There probably > aren't any biologically-based reasons to oppose the hunting of Cranes -or > Yellow Warblers (I hear they taste like chicken) but some might object. > Their opinions are no less valid than yours. > Kurt > > > On 7/26/10 5:49 PM, "Eric Harrold" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't buy the notion that MOST birders objecting to the crane season on >> this >> forum are doing so because of perceived circumvention of the process by the >> DNR. Do they really think the DNR would propose a season or set bag limits >> that would seriously threaten breeding crane populations? I think this is a >> convenient position to claim that disguises the real motivation to prevent >> any >> hunting of cranes on the part of some folks. Otherwise, the voiced objections >> on here would contain more intelligent questions about crane populations and >> their distribution in the state where hunting has been proposed. Instead, all >> anyone has done is cry foul about the process. I asked the following question >> in one of my first posts on this subject: Does anyone have any >> biologically-based objections to the proposed harvest? >> >> Does the DNR or USFWS conduct many/any public hearings concerning waterfowl >> season? Few to my knowledge. The flyway councils appropriately have >> significant input on such proposed seasons and take positions that are >> biologically-based. the individuals making the policy decisions here are the >> best prepared to make such decisions and do so from a scientific perspective. >> >> Eric Harrold >> Urbana, IL >> >> >> --- On Mon, 7/26/10, Liz Stanley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> From: Liz Stanley <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [mou-net] More wasted birder energy focused on a hunting issue >> (SHCR) >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 1:18 PM >> >> >> I must have missed the part of the discussion that was anti-hunting. I >> thought the issue at hand was the lack of an open process for the decision >> made by the DNR. Discussing problems with the process, and debating the >> end result of it are two different things. >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Do yourselves and more importantly bird conservation a lot of good by >>> finding something more biologically meaningful to focus on rather than >>> whether 5 or 10 Sandhill Cranes are going to be killed by hunters in >> > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
